OCA 2005

The appellants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to commit extortion, extortion, and possession of bugging equipment.

The charges arose from a private investigation business where female operatives were hired to lure targets into surreptitiously recorded sexual encounters to extort money.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conspiracy convictions, finding insufficient evidence that the appellants had formed an agreement with the alleged co-conspirators to commit extortion.

However, the court upheld one appellant's conviction for extortion, ruling that threatening to have a debtor fired to collect a legitimate debt lacked reasonable justification or excuse.

The court also upheld the conviction for possessing bugging equipment, finding the devices were primarily useful for surreptitious interception.

The 10-month sentence was affirmed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable on a contract for the provision of farm produce.

The contract was originally drafted between the respondent and a corporation, but the name of the appellant's partnership was added by hand and initialled by his partner.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the handwritten addition was sufficient to make the partnership and its individual partners parties to the contract.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant entered into a vehicle lease with the respondent through an agent, Fleet Financial Inc. The agent arranged a second lease with different terms and subsequently defaulted on payments to the respondent.

The respondent sought repossession of the vehicle after a 14-month delay.

The trial judge granted repossession, finding the agent acted for the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant must bear the consequences of his agent's default.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition, noting it responded to the alternative section requested by the appellant and was supported by the evidence.

Although the appellant refused to cooperate with some conditions, he had been an exemplary patient in the hospital setting.

The appeal was dismissed, with the expectation that the Board would consider all relevant dispositions at the next annual review.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed his discharge at a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reviewing judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded their jurisdiction by weighing the defence of 'reasonable excuse', which falls outside the essential elements of the offence.

The appeal was dismissed, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge crafted a fit sentence at the time, compelling fresh evidence made it not in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the appellant.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years of probation.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment which found that although the respondent lawyers were negligent, their negligence caused no actual loss to the appellants.

The appellants argued the trial judge ignored evidence that settlement funds were a loan from their mother.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was no credible evidence of a loan, and that the appellants would have proceeded with the settlement regardless of the lawyers' negligence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two grounds: prejudice from an amended charge and an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground but allowed the appeal on the second ground.

The court found a basic inconsistency in the trial judge's reasons, as she concluded the appellant intentionally misled customs officials while simultaneously finding him to be an honest witness whose denial of intent she accepted.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellants, retail employees and corporate retailers, were charged with working in or carrying on a retail business on a holiday contrary to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

They challenged the constitutionality of the 1993 amendments to the Act, arguing it infringed their freedom of religion under s. 2(a) and equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Act's purpose remains the secular one of providing common pause days for retail employees, and that it does not significantly burden religious freedom.

The court also held that any differential treatment was based on occupational status, not an enumerated or analogous ground under s. 15, and therefore did not constitute discrimination.

The appellant landlord appealed a jury award of punitive damages arising from its continuing failure to maintain and repair the respondent's apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury properly identified an independent actionable wrong based on the landlord's highly reprehensible conduct.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the trial judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.10 after the judgment exceeded the respondent's offer to settle.

The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and costs of the appeal.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge based on unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with serious offences against his spouse.

The trial judge found the 19-month delay in the Ontario Court of Justice exceeded guidelines.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred by including the neutral intake period in the systemic delay calculation, isolating the delay in the Ontario Court of Justice from the total time, and mischaracterizing inherent time requirements as systemic delay.

The total 23-month delay was not unreasonable given the serious charges and scheduling complexities.

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

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, following a traffic stop.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons, improperly rejected allegations of racial profiling, and erred in evidentiary rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate and no evidence of racial profiling.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the two-year sentence to two years less 20 days to preserve the appellant's right to appeal his deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The appellant previously appealed his committal for extradition and applied for judicial review of the surrender decision.

The appeal was dismissed, but the judicial review was adjourned pending reconsideration of the surrender decision.

The Minister of Justice subsequently vacated the surrender order and discharged the appellant.

The parties agreed the matter was moot, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her sentence for fraud over $1,000.

The trial judge had rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence, noting the appellant reoffended while on probation, the length of time over which the offence occurred, the amount involved, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with 16 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued that his statements to police, which led to the discovery of his wife's cremated remains and forensic evidence in his home, were obtained in violation of his Charter rights under s. 10(b) and s. 7.

He also challenged the trial judge's use of his after-the-fact conduct to infer murderous intent and the assessment of expert bloodstain evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no Charter breaches and no errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the parole ineligibility period was reduced to 13 years to accord with the parity principle for domestic murders.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a medium secure unit following a finding of not criminally responsible for public mischief.

The appellant argued he had been detained too long for a minor offence and that the Board failed to adequately consider the least onerous and least intrusive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory cap on detention relied upon by the appellant was not in force, and that the Board's reasons, read as a whole, demonstrated adequate consideration of the requirement to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his counterclaims for a declaration that he owned certain technology.

The motions judge found that the appellant had assigned any rights in the technology to the respondent employer and that his employment contract precluded him from claiming ownership upon termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no genuine issue for trial and concluding that the appellant received consideration for the employment contracts.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $143,755 plus costs and 18% interest for an unpaid account.

The appellant argued it was owed a $30,000 credit and that rebates should have been processed despite the overdue account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence strongly supported the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant was in default, the respondent was entitled to terminate the agreement, and the applicable interest rate was 18%.

The appellant sought to vary the remaining 3.5 months of his conditional sentence to allow him to leave house arrest two days a week for business purposes.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and allowed the appeal, varying the sentence to permit the appellant to leave his residence on Mondays and Thursdays in the company of his spouse to examine job sites.