OCA 2009

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, use of a firearm, and aggravated assault, as well as his 11-year sentence.

He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting his non-videotaped statements to police and photo array identification evidence that did not meet the Sophonow requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the weight of the evidence and affirmed that police should record interviews from the outset.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit given the gratuitous shooting and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellant sought to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice that required evidence to be led regarding a limitations defence at trial.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the matter was clearly interlocutory.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to refuse a motion for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an appeal book endorsement awarding costs to the respondent.

The respondent was awarded costs in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant employer appealed a wrongful dismissal decision awarding the respondent 24 months' severance and two months' Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was a 23-year employee despite a two-year gap for maternity reasons.

However, applying Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, the Court set aside the Wallace damages because the respondent's mental distress did not qualify for compensatory damages.

The Court also corrected a double-counting error regarding Employment Standards Act severance pay.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant was convicted of infanticide in 1999 based on the expert pathology evidence of Dr. Charles Smith, who opined that her four-month-old son was smothered.

Following the Goudge Inquiry, fresh expert evidence conclusively refuted Dr. Smith's findings, demonstrating that the child likely died of accidental asphyxia in an unsafe sleeping environment.

The Crown conceded that the fresh evidence should be admitted and the conviction quashed.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal, noting the profound miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease clause concerning the allocation of property taxes.

The lease gave the respondent discretion to use working papers if deemed sufficient.

The application judge found the respondent's decision not to use the working papers was reasonable and consistent with the lease.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that working papers are not intended to apply to individual premises and their unreliability is a legitimate consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly grappled with the central issue of the complainant's lack of consent and reasonably accepted expert evidence regarding forced sexual intercourse.

The court concluded the reasons were sufficient and the verdict was supported by ample evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

Following the court's conclusion on a related appeal, counsel for the applicant conceded that the application for judicial review could not succeed.

The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition on a murder charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the extradition judge and concluding there was ample evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find the appellant guilty.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation, arguing the Crown improperly split its case by cross-examining him on a segment of his police statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that defence counsel at trial did not object to the cross-examination, did not object to the jury instructions, and specifically declined the trial judge's offer of a mistrial.

The court found no basis to conclude the trial was unfair.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a medium security facility, seeking a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant suffers from a serious psychiatric disorder, is resistant to treatment, lacks insight, and represents a serious risk to public safety if untreated.

The Board's order was held to be reasonable.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing the Ministry of Transportation's award of a highway construction contract to the lowest bidder.

The second-lowest bidder had argued the winning bid was non-compliant because it declared no imported steel, despite design drawings specifying rolled steel beams unavailable in Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Ministry's investigation and subsequent conclusion that the winning bid was compliant—based on the bidder's intention to use Canadian welded steel that met structural standards—was reasonable.

Following a successful appeal that set aside a Norwich order, the Court of Appeal issued an addendum to explicitly set aside the underlying December Order.

The Court also determined the costs of the proceedings below.

Departing from the general rule that costs follow the event, the Court ordered that no costs be awarded to any party for the Superior Court proceedings, citing the appellants' shifting legal positions, the unsettled nature of the law regarding Norwich orders, and the underlying conduct of the appellants.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $364,266.92 in an accounting and $50,000 in punitive damages to the respondent, a creditor of a bankrupt company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellants failed to provide a reliable accounting or preserve necessary documents.

The court also upheld the punitive damages award, noting the appellants operated the bankrupt company's business without authority and charged criminal rates of interest.

The respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and was sentenced to two years less a day, plus probation, with 12 months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing the respondent played a more significant role than a mere courier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the respondent was involved in the distribution of multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and negotiating prices.

The sentence was varied to four years, with credit for pre-trial custody and time served on parole.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its claim for a commission and unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found there was no agreement to pay the appellant in the absence of a completed transaction, and the appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and attempted murder following a shooting at a bar.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the preliminary inquiry testimony of a witness who had since moved to Ukraine, claiming he lacked full opportunity to cross-examine due to late disclosure of a potential 'bail for testimony' deal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'full opportunity' requirement under s. 715 of the Criminal Code is not defeated by an accused's ignorance of potentially useful information, and that the admission did not render the trial fairness.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's decision not to give a Vetrovec warning, as defence counsel had not requested one and the jury was adequately cautioned.

The appellant appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The Crown conceded that the length of the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal accepted the concession and reduced the conditional sentence to twelve months.

The appellant appealed a ten-month sentence imposed for various breach offences, impaired driving, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appellant, a second-time offender, continued to consume and sell marijuana while on bail and later while subject to a conditional sentence order.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not unfit given the appellant's unrepentant actions and failure to seek treatment previously.

The appeal was dismissed.