OCA 2008

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, as the appellant's claim was granted but damages under certain heads were not awarded, keeping the amount in issue below the jurisdictional threshold.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed an order striking paragraphs in its statement of claim that alleged three statements (website, faxed, and oral) were defamatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the impugned remarks, taken in context, were not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual offences against a child.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to take judicial notice of physical signs of sexual intercourse in a child and by treating his failure to contact his family as after-the-fact conduct indicative of guilt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to take judicial notice or in his treatment of the after-the-fact conduct.

The applicants (accused) brought a motion for directions seeking a disclosure order regarding an in-chambers pre-sentence meeting before the trial judge, relevant to the Crown's sentence appeal.

The Crown confirmed it possessed no written records of the meeting and conceded it could not contradict the applicants' version of the essential facts.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal found no purpose would be served by a disclosure order and directed the applicants to prepare a draft statement of agreed facts based on their version of events.

The appellant appealed his sentence after the trial judge rejected a joint submission of two years plus three years' probation, instead imposing a sentence of four and a half years.

The trial judge found the joint submission fell well below the minimum appropriate sentence, noting aggravating factors including domestic assault with a knife, forced entry, being on probation for offences against the same victim, and a record of over fifty convictions.

The Court of Appeal agreed the joint submission was too low but held the trial judge should have imposed a sentence at the bottom of the appropriate range.

The Court varied the sentence on the break and enter count to two and a half years, resulting in a total effective global sentence of four years.

The Crown appealed a costs order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent conceded that the appeal should be allowed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs order.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium security setting at the hospital, despite submissions from the hospital and the Attorney General that his detention in a minimum security setting should be continued.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error and held that the disposition was reasonable given the appellant's worsened mental condition, recent elopement, violent ideation, and high risk for future elopements and violent recidivism.

The appeal was dismissed.

The deceased died intestate and his separated wife was appointed estate trustee.

The respondent, claiming to be the deceased's common law spouse, sought a declaration of dependency and support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The estate trustee served a notice of contestation under the Estates Act and later sought a declaration that the respondent had abandoned her claims by failing to meet the limitation period in the Estates Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's claims for declaratory relief were not a 'claim or demand' within the meaning of the Estates Act, which applies only to creditors' claims.

The limitation period under the Succession Law Reform Act governed the respondent's claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondents, who were previously declared vexatious litigants, leave to proceed with an action under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by misapprehending evidence regarding the appellants' knowledge of the respondents' claims prior to a settlement, and by treating the issue primarily as one of issue estoppel rather than examining the totality of the respondents' conduct.

The Court concluded the respondents' devious conduct to circumvent the vexatious litigant order constituted an abuse of process, allowed the appeal, and refused leave to proceed.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the respondent's counsel made a prejudicial jury address.

The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the jury to conclude the respondent steered into the oncoming lane to avoid an unidentified vehicle.

The court also found that a factual error in the respondent's jury address did not prejudice the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for selling crack cocaine to an undercover police officer, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on identification evidence and that the Crown improperly cross-examined him regarding his alibi and prior criminal record.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury instructions on identification, when read as a whole, properly distinguished between certainty and reliability.

The court also held that the Crown's cross-examination on the appellant's alibi and prior record was proper and cured by appropriate limiting instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision granting certiorari to quash a decision made at the conclusion of a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Superior Court judge that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by considering the evidence in isolated segments rather than as a whole.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in her s. 11(b) Charter analysis by not giving adequate weight to the harm to his health caused by the delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to diminish the force of the prejudice claim because the appellant failed to raise health concerns before the motion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error in rejecting a conditional sentence after considering the appellant's health problems.

The Ministry of Labour appealed a decision staying or dismissing charges against the respondent employer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence of actual, irremediable prejudice to the respondent's ability to make full answer and defence simply because the employees no longer worked for the employer.

The matter was remitted to the trial court for trial.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) and a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the NCR finding, holding that the appellant's guilty plea was unequivocal and there was no dispute regarding fitness.

The appeal from the Board's order was dismissed as moot because the appellant was scheduled to be moved to another facility.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding adverse possession of a disputed strip of land between two properties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the respondent regularly used the disputed strip at the front of the houses, defeating the claim for adverse possession there.

However, the Court found that the application judge failed to address the back of the house, where a fence excluded the respondent and established exclusive possession for the appellant.

The judgments were amended accordingly, with costs awarded to the respondent who was substantially successful.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing despite being advised by amicus curiae that the appeal could be dismissed if he did not appear.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a vicious, unprovoked attack on an innocent victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was fit and that the trial judge correctly emphasized denunciation and general deterrence without treating the appellant as if he had been convicted of attempted murder.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred regarding the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant was not serving any sentence when sentenced on these charges, having completed his prior sentence nine months earlier.

The trial judge properly gave 2:1 credit for the nine months of pre-sentence custody.

The totality principle under s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code had no application.

The total sentence of 42 months was well within the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs fixed at $4,000 for the proceedings in the court below and $4,000 for the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and GST.