OCA 2008

The appellant, appearing in person, sought an adjournment of his appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a related matter concerning the Board's Charter jurisdiction.

The respondents opposed the adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment, noting that the appellant's status would not change and there would be no detriment to the public interest, while a Supreme Court decision could affect further proceedings.

The young person appealed the decision to sentence him as an adult.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider the immigration consequences and possible deportation resulting from the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination, particularly given the position taken by defence counsel at trial and the absence of a proper evidentiary record regarding deportation.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings due to a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of delay, complexity, and prejudice.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed based on fresh evidence, and the conditional sentence was reduced to 15 months with varied terms.

The appellant, a Canadian pig producer, appealed an order dismissing its motion for an anti-suit injunction and granting a stay of its Ontario action against a Russian corporation.

The appellant sought to avoid an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Moscow, alleging the respondent's CEO made death threats against its chief operating officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the injunction issues moot as the arbitration had already occurred.

The court upheld the stay of the Ontario action, concluding the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the appellant's related tort claims.

The appellant appealed from a conviction entered on December 6, 2005, and a sentence imposed on February 3, 2006, by a judge and jury.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in a brief endorsement.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court, which had dismissed his appeal from conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding that despite the appeal judge's comments, she had applied the proper test under Morrissey.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of a lawyer charged with conspiracy, counselling, and attempt to launder the proceeds of crime following an undercover police operation.

The trial judge had acquitted the accused on all counts.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made legal errors in her analysis of the conspiracy and attempt counts, including misapprehending the required parties to a conspiracy and incorrectly characterizing the accused's conduct as mere preparation.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the acquittals for conspiracy and attempt and ordering a new trial on those counts, while dismissing the appeal on the counselling count.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision refusing to make a sex offender registration order following guilty pleas to sexual exploitation and making child pornography.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by treating the legislation as confined to predatory stranger offenders, by relying on the impact of the charge, delay, conviction, and stigma rather than the impact of registration itself, and by overstating the privacy and liberty effects of registration.

The court further held that low risk of reoffending does not determine either the applicability of the presumptive registration provision or the exemption analysis.

The offender failed to establish that registration would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in effective investigation of sexual offences.

The Crown appeal was allowed and a 20-year registration order was imposed.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of shares he would acquire upon employment.

The defendants sought to stay the action, arguing the dispute should be referred to arbitration pursuant to a shareholders' agreement and the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The application judge refused the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the dispute was not 'commercial' in nature and did not arise out of a 'transaction' as defined in the shareholders' agreement, thus falling outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The husband appealed an order striking his Answer to the wife's claims for support and equalization.

The motion judge struck the Answer because the husband breached an order for disclosure of financial information relating to his business.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that striking a pleading is a serious remedy and the husband's conduct was not sufficiently serious to warrant it.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the motion to strike and the costs of compelling production from his former business partner.

The appellants appealed an order declaring Mr. Pavicevic dead as of January 10, 1997, under the Declarations of Death Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the criteria for a declaration of death were met.

Because Mr. Pavicevic and the respondent held property as joint tenants, title passed automatically to the respondent upon his presumed death, defeating the appellants' spousal support order which was not registered on title until 2005.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a low-rise forming contractor, commenced an action against the respondent employers' association for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging misuse of an Industry Fund.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the association's statutory duty of fair representation and the reasonableness of levied fees, both of which are matters exclusively within the Board's jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring that their commercial lease expired and ordering vacant possession.

The appellants argued that they had entered into a binding conditional contract for the extension or renewal of the lease and that the landlords were estoppel from adducing evidence to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record amply supported the application judge's conclusion that the parties were merely engaged in negotiations and had not concluded an enforceable agreement to renew or extend the lease.

The appellants appealed an application judge's decision finding that the pylon sign in the engineering drawings accorded with the terms of the commercial lease.

The appellants argued the drawings showed a much larger footprint than the lease specified and placed the sign in a different location.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the lease terms were imprecise and subject to change upon completion of engineering drawings.

The Court also upheld the decision to order a trial of an issue regarding the remedy of specific performance, despite it not being pleaded, as there was no prejudice to the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for amounts owing under a personal line of credit.

They argued the bank's action was based solely on a mortgage securing a different line of credit and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding their liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the statement of claim clearly sought payment for both lines of credit and there was uncontradicted evidence of the appellants' joint and several liability under the personal line of credit agreement.

The appellants were committed for trial on fraud-related charges and appealed the dismissal of their motion to quash the committals.

The appellant Suissa argued that the preliminary inquiry judge's reasons were inadequate and constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court of Appeal held that inadequate reasons for committal are not per se a jurisdictional error and that the application judge properly reviewed the record to find a basis for committal.

The appellant Tehrani argued there was insufficient evidence for committal, but the Court found a sufficient evidentiary basis existed.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiff sued a corporate tenant for breach of a commercial lease and its sole shareholder personally for inducing the breach.

The plaintiff also sued a subsequent purchaser of the tenant's assets for unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance.

The trial judge found the tenant and shareholder liable but dismissed the claims against the purchaser.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the finding of personal liability against the shareholder, holding that entering into two leases was not a tortious act outside the scope of his authority and did not justify piercing the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the purchaser was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to apply the Vetrovec principles to a witness's evidence and erred in presuming she had knowledge of materials from various civil suits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was alive to the witness's evidence and was not required to expressly refer to Vetrovec.

Furthermore, any error regarding the civil suits caused no prejudice as they were a minor aspect of the case and the appellant had the opportunity to provide an explanation.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the usage of a full laneway to access the back of her property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if usage could be established, it would merely provide an alternative second way to access the property and did not rise to the level of reasonable necessity for the better enjoyment of the property.

The applicant, charged with terrorism offences, was denied bail by a justice of the peace and twice by superior court judges.

After a direct indictment was filed, he applied to a single judge of the Court of Appeal for a bail review.

The court held that the trial had not yet commenced for the purposes of s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, meaning s. 520 governed the application.

However, the court declined to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under s. 520, ruling that absent special circumstances, superior courts should deal with bail prior to and during a trial.

The application was dismissed.