OCA 2005

The appellant was convicted of assault after striking a store employee who confronted him for shoplifting.

He appealed to the Summary Conviction Appeal Court, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that he was suffering from diabetic shock during the trial, which impaired his ability to participate.

The appeal judge dismissed the application and the appeal.

On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellant argued the appeal judge erred in rejecting the fresh evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the fresh evidence ruling and concluding the reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

The Court also declined to hear new grounds not raised below.

The appellant municipality sought to replace its full-time firefighters with volunteers and passed a by-law purporting to terminate the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the arbitrator and Divisional Court, finding that the collective agreement continued in effect beyond its expiry date due to the freeze provision in the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Act, 1997.

The court held that the municipality could not unilaterally terminate the agreement, as the Act requires the consent of the Ontario Labour Relations Board on joint application, rendering the by-law of no effect.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for solicitor's negligence.

The appellant had retained the respondent solicitor to obtain a speedy divorce so he could remarry.

Against the advice of the solicitor and his accountant, the appellant signed a separation agreement prepared by his wife's lawyer because he did not want to risk upsetting his wife and delaying the divorce.

The trial judge found the solicitor met the standard of care and the appellant failed to prove damages.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The respondents sought to enforce an arbitration clause in a Joint Use Agreement against the appellant, a successor in title, to resolve a snow removal dispute.

The motion judge appointed an arbitrator, finding the clause was an administrative covenant incidental to negative covenants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitration clause was a positive covenant that did not run with the land and was therefore not binding on the appellant.

The court also found that the statutory exceptions under the Planning Act did not apply as they are limited to covenants enforced by a municipality.

The successful appellant brought an application to amend the Court of Appeal's previous reasons for judgment, which had inadvertently omitted the costs awarded in the underlying tort action from the indemnity order against the respondent insurer.

The insurer opposed the amendment on the basis that it was not a party to the tort action.

The Court granted the application, holding that the insurer's obligation to indemnify under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act applies to the entire judgment recovered against the insured, including costs, regardless of whether the insurer was a party to the tort action.

The appellant appealed a decision declining court jurisdiction over a dispute regarding long-term disability benefit entitlements.

The motions judge concluded that the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, or administration of a collective agreement, meaning it must be resolved by arbitration.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the long-term disability plan explicitly barred actions against the insurer and had to be read in conjunction with the collective agreement for unionized employees.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed from an order of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court refusing to extend the time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the exercise of discretion, as there was no explanation for the delay or evidence of an intention to appeal within the required time.

The Court also rejected arguments that the appellant was denied the right to speak before sentencing and that he was punished twice for the same offence contrary to s. 11(h) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the reasonable doubt standard to circumstantial evidence.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's competing inference on the basis that it was not 'equally plausible'.

The Court of Appeal held this was a clear legal error, as reasonable possibilities in favour of an accused may give rise to a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed a decision applying the doctrine of res judicata based on prior CCAA proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants were neither parties nor privies in interest to the prior proceedings.

The court noted that the appellants only participated as witnesses and that respondents' counsel had previously indicated that findings in the CCAA proceedings would not affect proceedings against other parties.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on drug trafficking charges.

Police officers responded to a 911 call about armed men and lawfully detained the respondent and his passenger in their vehicle.

After a pat-down search yielded no weapons, officers searched the vehicle and found cocaine and ecstasy in a zippered case in the glove compartment.

The trial judge found the extended vehicle search violated section 8 of the Charter as it was not reasonably necessary, and excluded the evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the officers could have easily verified the respondent's innocent explanation instead of conducting the extended search.

The appellant brought a motion for declaratory orders and appealed an order dismissing a motion to compel the respondent insurer to defend him in certain actions and for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding it cannot grant declaratory orders on issues not previously decided by a lower court.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error.

The respondent was detained in a police holding cell and attempted to hang herself using her brassiere.

Police officers forcibly removed her clothing and, when she refused to move into the view of a video camera, handcuffed her to the cell bars while naked.

The trial judge dismissed her action for negligence, assault, and Charter breaches, finding the police acted reasonably and in accordance with policy.

The Divisional Court ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge failed to consider her dignity and privacy interests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the police officers' appeal and restored the trial judge's dismissal, holding that the trial judge did not ignore the evidence regarding her dignity and privacy, and that there was no palpable and overriding error.

The Minister of Health and Genpharm appealed a decision granting judicial review that quashed the extension of a cut-off date for generic drug submissions to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The application judge had found the process procedurally unfair and ordered a new cut-off date, resulting in all five competing generic drug companies having their products listed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals as moot, finding that the new Formulary had already been published, the legal landscape had changed, and Genpharm's proposed future action for damages did not justify hearing the appeal on the merits.

The Ministry of Labour sought leave to appeal an acquittal of the respondent on a charge of failing to guard a machine under section 25 of the Regulations for Industrial Establishments.

The justice of the peace had acquitted the respondent, finding that workplace procedures and enhancements precluded the need for a physical guard.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, holding that whether workplace rules can substitute for a physical guard raises a question of law and that it is essential in the public interest to determine this issue.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, brought a motion to extend the time for filing her notice of appeal from a family law judgment.

She had attempted to file within the time limit, but her notice was rejected due to formal defects.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing lack of merit and delay.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension, finding the moving party had a firm intention to appeal, adequately explained the delay, and the responding party suffered no prejudice.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding liability for a gas spill.

The appellant had accepted responsibility for the spill, made substantial payments, and indicated that only damages needed to be quantified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's words and conduct reasonably led to the conclusion that it would not rely on the limitation period.

The respondent sued the Washington Post and three of its reporters for defamation regarding two articles published in 1997.

At the time of publication, the respondent lived in Kenya and the newspaper had minimal circulation in Ontario.

The respondent moved to Ontario three years later and commenced the action.

The appellants brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and found no real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario.

The appeal was allowed and the action was stayed.

Following the release of reasons for judgment on the appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The Court declined to fix costs for the underlying application, directing the parties to make submissions to the application judge.

For the appeal, the Court rejected the respondents' claim for substantial indemnity costs, determining that partial indemnity was appropriate, and fixed the respondents' costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The young person appealed from a finding of guilt for sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by relying on a prior consistent statement (a handwritten letter) made by the complainant to bolster her credibility.

The court held that the letter was introduced only to explain how the allegations came to be reported, and its use to enhance credibility was an error.

The appeal was allowed, the finding of guilt was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge's reasons reflected a 2-for-1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a global sentence of 19 months, which the Crown acknowledged was outside the appropriate range.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to time served (13 months).