OCA 2006

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting possession of their property to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding corroborating evidence and equitable estoppel, and upheld the motion judge's reasons.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts underlying the counterclaim were known to the appellant from the beginning, and obtaining legal advice did not raise a discoverability issue.

Furthermore, there were no facts raising a genuine issue for trial concerning an alleged fiduciary duty.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition but noted a legitimate concern regarding whether the appellant might be appropriately placed in a medium security facility other than Brockville.

The Court asked the Board to consider this question at the appellant's upcoming hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her sentence for conspiracy to rob her employer.

She argued the sentencing judge erred by considering evidence that she had previously provided information to her boyfriend enabling him to commit a serious robbery against the same victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the earlier events were part of the circumstances of the conspiracy under section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, and the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the sentence fell within the parameters of the joint submission put forward by counsel.

The court found the joint submission to be a fair reflection of the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's serious, related, and lengthy criminal record.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's interjection during argument resulted in unfairness and challenged the trial judge's findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the unfairness argument and held that the factual challenges revealed no error in law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's inferences regarding the speed and location of the appellant's vehicle were amply justified by the evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's decision to reject a conditional sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery, arguing that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions on identification evidence and improperly admitted evidence of his failure to attend work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions and holding that the work attendance evidence was relevant to opportunity.

The sentence was also upheld as fit given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the seriousness of the offences.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's disposition.

The Court held that the trial judge's inferences from a conversation with the victim's mother were reasonably open and that the proposed fresh evidence regarding a Human Rights Commission claim was properly rejected.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed for lack of merit.

The appellant, an in-house corporate counsel, appealed a trial judge's order making him jointly and severally liable for $140,000 in costs awarded against his employer and related companies.

The trial judge had found that the appellant shared a common financial interest with his clients through an employment agreement, placing him in a conflict of interest with his duty to the court and his clients.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employment agreement did not actually give the appellant a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if such a financial interest existed, it would align with the clients' interests rather than conflict with them, and would not breach the lawyer's duty to the court absent unprofessional conduct in the litigation.

The costs order against the appellant was set aside.

The infant plaintiff was seriously injured when struck by a train at a railway crossing.

The plaintiffs sued the railway company, the municipality, and the federal government for negligence.

The federal government successfully moved to strike the claim against it on the basis that it owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, affirming that under the Railway Safety Act, the federal government's statutory duties are owed to the public at large, not to individuals, and thus fail the proximity requirement for a private law duty of care.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that a co-accused's prior statement could not be used for its truth against the appellant unless adopted at trial.

The Crown conceded this misdirection.

As the court could not conclude the result would necessarily have been the same without the error, the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent had fulfilled its obligations under Minutes of Settlement regarding the remediation of a former service station property.

The appellant argued that the respondent failed to conduct 'appropriate further testing' as required by the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minutes of Settlement, read as a whole, delegated the authority to determine what constituted appropriate further testing to an independent environmental consultant, and the respondent had complied with the consultant's determinations.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was determined by a Designated Assessment Centre to have suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The insurer disputed this finding, initiated mediation, and after mediation failed, commenced a court action for a declaration that the insured was not catastrophically impaired.

The motion judge struck the insurer's claim, finding that the Insurance Act provides a complete code for dispute resolution that does not permit an insurer to initiate a court proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, confirming that the statutory scheme requires the insured to initiate court or arbitration proceedings to enforce a disputed catastrophic impairment finding, while protecting the insurer by allowing it to pay only its last settlement offer pending resolution.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting deaths of his parents.

At trial, the Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's exclusive insider opportunity and physical evidence, to prove he committed the murders and fabricated a story about an intruder.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the defence theory, motive, post-offence conduct, and the burden of proof.

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's rulings on the admissibility of expert evidence and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The court held that the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence criterion and would not have affected the verdict.

Furthermore, the court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order surrendering him to the United States to face charges for distributing crack cocaine.

The applicant argued that the Minister failed to give adequate reasons, erred in the Cotroni assessment regarding his section 6 Charter rights, and that the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in the US breached section 7 of the Charter and section 44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's reasons adequate, the Cotroni assessment reasonable, and that the mandatory minimum sentence did not shock the conscience.

The appellant, who suffered from bipolar disorder, was arrested and placed in a detention centre where he killed his cellmate.

He was found not guilty by reason of mental disorder and committed for eight years.

He sued the police and detention centre for negligence in failing to obtain a psychiatric assessment or provide timely medication.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge made some legal errors in interpreting the Mental Health Act and the test for systemic negligence, there was no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings that the respondents met the standard of care and that any breach did not cause the damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of reasons for decision, the respondent sought costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal amended its previous costs order, which had awarded no costs, to award the respondent $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, taking into account the novelty of the issue and the fact that costs were only sought against the appellant.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an oral agreement to settle an action, reached during mandatory mediation, was enforceable.

The appellant argued that because the agreement was not reduced to writing and signed as contemplated by Rule 24.1.15(3), it was unenforceable, and that mediation confidentiality precluded its enforcement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties had agreed formal minutes were not required, the appellant had confirmed his agreement, and evidence of what occurred at mediation may be considered when the enforceability of a settlement is in issue.

The appellants appealed their convictions related to a marijuana grow operation, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The trial judge found that both appellants knew the house contained a grow operation, secured the door upon leaving, and were present to care for the plants.

The appellants argued their presence might have been for general house maintenance, raising a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the maintenance theory and concluding the verdict was not unreasonable.