OCA 2007

The Minister of Transportation appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Municipal Board compensation award for expropriated land.

The dispute centered on the 'before and after' valuation method, specifically whether development and delay costs were double-counted when calculating the 'after' value of the remaining parcel.

The Court of Appeal found that deducting the full development costs while also factoring in the betterment of the remaining lands amounted to double-counting.

The appeal was allowed, and the compensation payable to the respondent was reduced from $1,110,344 to $623,121.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he defrauded the respondent in the sale of a business and awarding damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and the valuation of the business.

The Court also upheld the award of $402,000 in consequential damages for wasted expenses incurred by the respondent in attempting to salvage the unviable business.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to a minor clarification in the formal order to prevent double counting of damages.

The appellant appealed his custodial sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident, arguing for a conditional sentence based on fresh evidence of his medical condition.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the trial judge and held that the fresh evidence did not warrant a reduction in sentence.

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

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and misapplied the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to address key inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding whether a robbery actually occurred, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

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

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order permitting the respondent to amend the style of cause from M. C. Trading of Canada Inc. to Meneses-Canso Bros.

Trading Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the amendment was appropriate as it was a simple case of misnomer and the appellants were always aware of the true identity of the company they were dealing with.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for an offence involving a mentally and physically challenged complainant.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge failed to place adequate weight on the gravity of the offence and the complainant's vulnerability.

The conditional sentence was held to be demonstrably unfit.

The Court allowed the appeal, substituting a sentence of three years, reduced to 22 months to account for the 14 months already served under the conditional sentence.

The appellant, an aboriginal offender, appealed his sentence.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code or the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to time served, as the appellant's mandatory release date was in one month and no restorative purpose would be served by further incarceration.

The probation period was extended from twelve to fifteen months to enable restorative treatment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence.

He argued the conviction was unreasonable, the jury charge on self-defence was inadequate, and challenged his involvement in trafficking marijuana.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence of violence and theft supported the robbery conviction, the jury charge was clear, and his presence to assist in trafficking evidenced his guilt as an aider or abettor.

The court found no error in principle in the sentence.

With consent, a stay on a conviction for possession of a firearm while prohibited was vacated, a conviction entered, and a concurrent six-month sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing an application for certiorari to quash an order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that on the facts, it was not an appropriate case to revisit the test in Mezzo.

The court concluded that under any test, there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Crown conceded the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay evidence from the appellant's cross-examination of the victim.

The Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso, finding that a conviction was inevitable given the victim's injuries, which clearly indicated the use of a weapon.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

However, the court found the 48-month sentence was outside the acceptable range and reduced it to time served, equivalent to 32 months.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that its commercial property was an 'eligible property' under s. 447.34.1 of the Municipal Act.

The property had been subject to a frozen assessment listing, and a notice of supplementary assessment triggered s. 447.10.

The Court of Appeal held that the property met the definition of 'eligible property' because s. 447.10(2) applied to determine the final assessment after improvements were made.

The appeal was allowed, and the municipality was ordered to determine the total assessment for the property as an eligible property.

The appellant father appealed a decision dismissing his motion for leave to bring a motion for access to his 12-year-old son.

The motion judge had refused leave solely because the father had not paid previously ordered costs.

The Court of Appeal held that it is an error in law to bar a parent from seeking access solely on the ground of unpaid costs without considering the amount, reasons for non-payment, and ability to pay.

The Court set aside the decision, granted the father leave to bring his access motion, and ordered interim unsupervised access, noting the troubling history of ex parte non-contact orders that lacked evidentiary foundation.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable for a pre-incorporation lease he signed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the corporation did not signify its intention to be bound by the lease within a reasonable time after coming into existence, as required by s. 21(2) of the Business Corporations Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties were married in Russia and lived briefly in Ontario before the husband returned to Russia and obtained a divorce.

The wife subsequently brought an application in Ontario for spousal support under the Divorce Act or Family Law Act, and for equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts.

The Court of Appeal held that an Ontario court does not have jurisdiction to hear a corollary relief proceeding under the Divorce Act or a support claim under the Family Law Act following a valid foreign divorce.

However, the court held that an Ontario court does have jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to hear and determine an equalization claim by a former spouse following a valid foreign divorce.

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the Ontario Securities Commission's motion for leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs on the dismissal of such a motion.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if jurisdiction existed, the general rule in proceedings under the Act is that no costs are awarded against either party, and there were no circumstances justifying a departure from that rule.

The request for costs was denied.

The plaintiff appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its fraudulent conveyance action against the debtor's wife on a non-suit motion.

The debtor cross-appealed the trial judge's decision granting judgment on his personal guarantee without allowing him to make closing arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

While the trial judge erred in denying the debtor the opportunity to make closing arguments, this did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore, although the trial judge applied the wrong test on the non-suit motion by weighing competing inferences rather than assessing if a prima facie case was made, the trial judge correctly concluded on the merits that the plaintiff failed to establish fraudulent intent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out allegations of the tort of intimidation from its statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the tort of intimidation requires pleading not only a threat and intent to injure, but also that an act was taken or forgone as a result of the threat, causing damages.

As the appellant only pleaded a threat and intent to injure, the claim was properly struck without leave to amend.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the use of the complainant's videotaped statement and failed to review the evidence fairly.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not invite the jury to use the videotaped evidence impermissibly as a prior consistent statement, and the charge was balanced.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence fell within the recognized range and the trial judge properly treated the offences as akin to a breach of trust.

The appellant supplied construction materials to the respondent and signed an agreement acknowledging full payment.

The appellant later discovered it had failed to bill for several deliveries and sought to recover the outstanding amount, arguing the agreement should be set aside for common mistake.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement allocated the risk of mistake to the appellant, the mistake was the appellant's fault, and the respondent had altered its position.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including sexually assaulting two 14-year-old boys, and was designated a dangerous offender by the trial judge.

On appeal, the appellant argued he should have been designated a long-term offender, asserting his risk could be managed in the community with chemical castration and strict supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

The court noted the appellant's unwillingness to take sex-inhibiting drugs and the unavailability of the required level of community supervision.