OCA 2010

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, challenging the trial judge's order to sell a taxi plate.

The appellant argued that no party had requested the sale, called evidence on it, or made submissions regarding it.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge denied the appellant a fair hearing by ordering the sale on his own motion without notice or reasons.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the order for sale, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for failure to provide disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to consider the appellant's efforts to provide disclosure, the full procedural history including a previous mistrial, and the significant assets at stake.

The order was set aside, the pleadings were reinstated, and the matter was remitted to a case management judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that failed to find the individual respondent personally liable for a debt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by treating the case as one of piercing the corporate veil rather than personal contract.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence, including a quotation addressed to the individual and a purchase order signed by him without indicating a corporate capacity, the court concluded the appellant contracted with both the corporate and individual respondents.

The individual respondent was ordered to pay $89,849.94 plus pre-judgment interest.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding a failed real estate closing.

The motion judge found that neither party was prepared to close on the agreed date, meaning the appellant could not unilaterally terminate the agreement.

The respondent was entitled to set a new closing date.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the respondent was ready to close on the new date and that the representation regarding utilities reaching the lot line was a warranty, not a condition precedent.

The appeal was dismissed, with the closing date amended to May 10, 2010.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision that allowed the Crown's appeal and remitted the matter for a new trial.

The applicant had originally been acquitted of assaulting a peace officer and breach of recognizance.

The summary conviction appeal judge found a misapprehension of evidence central to the trial decision.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding no exceptional circumstances or matters of general importance to justify a second-level appeal.

The appellants brought an action seeking millions of dollars against the respondent, following a prior Small Claims Court action where they recovered approximately $6,000.

The motion judge dismissed the second action on the basis of res judicata, finding that both claims arose out of the same business relationship and the claims could have been brought in the first action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting the appellants' argument that fairness considerations should prevent the application of res judicata.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because there was no direct evidence identifying him as the occupant of the apartment where the drugs were found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly based his conclusion on the entire body of circumstantial evidence, which included the sublease in the appellant's name, his expired identity documents found in the apartment, and his car parked in the apartment's space.

The self-represented appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error, unreasonableness, or miscarriage of justice in the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat.

The court noted that the appellant's request for an outpatient assessment could be raised at her next annual review.

The appellant sought to be appointed as her mother's guardian and applied to rescind a Power of Attorney for personal care made in favour of her brother.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the mother had capacity, and also dismissed the appellant's motion for an adjournment to file further material and cross-examine an affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the application judge's discretionary refusal of the adjournment, as the appellant had sufficient time to serve responding material and provided no explanation for why an adjournment was required.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they were not 'farmers' under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was inadequate evidence to show the appellants were engaged in farming for commercial purposes.

The Court also rejected the argument that an earlier motion for security for costs rendered the issue res judicata.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment expunging a mortgage and finding the appellant wife complicit in a fraudulent mortgage transaction structured by her husband, a former solicitor.

The appellants argued there was no evidence to support the finding of complicity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record contained evidence that the appellant wife prepared the mortgage, signed the direction to register it, and gave instructions for its enforcement despite knowing no debt was owed.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that no legal fees were owed to the husband.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder and his sentence of 30 months' imprisonment after time served.

During a physical confrontation, the appellant slashed the complainant's neck with a 12-inch bread knife.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in finding the specific intent to kill and in rejecting his claims of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on intent and the unavailability of self-defence were firmly grounded in the evidence, and the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed an order regarding an agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the 120-day notice requirement applied to the unit transfer date, the appellant had waived any right to rely on it through the representations of their counsel.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sued her former family law solicitor for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a matrimonial settlement.

At trial, the solicitor admitted negligence concerning the treatment of a cottage as a matrimonial home and advice on spousal support, resulting in a damages award.

On appeal, the appellant argued the negligence permeated the entire settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal but found the trial judge erred in setting the commencement date for spousal support damages by double-counting a line of credit debt.

The Court adjusted the commencement date, increasing the spousal support damages by $6,210.

The appellant filed written submissions asking to appeal his sentence following a previous hearing.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the appellant had not abandoned his sentence appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out in the Crown's response.

The appellant appealed his convictions for discharging a firearm with intent to wound and related offences, as well as his global sentence of 7 years.

He argued that the trial judge erred in denying a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay, and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the 27-month delay was largely attributable to the appellant's changes in counsel and scheduling conflicts, not the Crown.

The court also found no misapprehension of evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the application of the Kienapple principle and concluding the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change a consent order for spousal support.

He argued that his son moving into his residence and his deteriorating financial position constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's move was reasonably foreseeable, the appellant's income had actually increased, and he was saving on child support.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, holding that the appellant's arguments focused on factual findings and alleged misapprehensions of evidence.

The court concluded that the appellant failed to raise a question of law of importance beyond the individual case.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for the respondent's psychiatric injury, which developed after the doctor failed to promptly disclose a talar fracture in the respondent's ankle.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that factual causation was established on the 'but for' test, as the respondent would not have suffered the psychiatric harm had the doctor disclosed the fracture.

The Court also found that legal causation was established, as it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach of the doctor-patient trust could cause a recognized psychiatric illness in a person of ordinary fortitude.

The appeal was dismissed, and the damages and costs awards were upheld.

The appellants, rural landowners whose lands formed part of a natural gas storage pool, brought an action against the respondent gas company for breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and nuisance.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Ontario Energy Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the substance of the claims fell within the ambit of section 38 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, which grants the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine just and equitable compensation for gas storage rights and related damages.