OCA 2010

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, seeking to set aside her guilty plea.

She argued her trial counsel provided ineffective representation and that her plea was not voluntary or informed due to threats from her co-accused and a lack of understanding of the immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice from the alleged ineffective assistance and concluding the plea was both informed regarding deportation risks and voluntary, as the allegations of threats were not credible.

The appellant appealed his fraud conviction following a guilty plea entered on the second day of trial, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

He claimed his trial counsel failed to adduce evidence in a section 8 Charter voir dire, failed to review disclosure, and provided improper advice, rendering his plea involuntary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to meet the high threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the guilty plea was voluntary and unequivocal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of trust and theft arising from his unilateral sale of real estate held in trust for himself and his business partners, and his taking of chattels from the property.

The trial judge found the appellant knew he was not entitled to deal with the property unilaterally and rejected his defence of reliance on legal advice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and sufficient to ground the convictions.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from a street racing incident.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of a recanting witness, allowing the jury to view a DVD of the statement during deliberations, and instructing the jury on criminal negligence.

He also appealed the rejection of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay statements were necessary and reliable, the jury instructions were adequate, and a significant custodial sentence was required to deter street racing.

The appellants were charged with offences under the Fisheries Act for allegedly destroying fish habitat.

The Crown elected to proceed summarily, and the appellants were convicted by a justice of the peace.

They brought an application for prohibition challenging the justice's jurisdiction to try federal offences, which was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that justices of the peace have jurisdiction to try summary conviction proceedings involving federal legislation pursuant to the Criminal Code and the Justices of the Peace Act.

The appellant appealed his convictions under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing his modified 1976 Chevrolet pick-up truck was exempt as a 'self-propelled implement of husbandry'.

The vehicle had been modified with a diesel engine, four-wheel drive, snow tires, and a heavy hitch for towing irrigation equipment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the modifications did not objectively transform the essential character or function of the vehicle for a specific use in farming, but merely made it better suited for general farm use.

The Public Guardian and Trustee brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal, while the appellant brought a motion to dismiss his own appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the guardianship order had been carried out and the parties had moved to British Columbia.

The Court of Appeal rejected the jurisdictional arguments but granted the motion to quash the appeal on the basis that it was manifestly devoid of merit.

The appellant's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on and misapprehending Correctional Services of Canada reports, and sought to introduce fresh expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly considered the institutional history and did not treat the reports as expert opinions.

The court declined to admit the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, noting the appellant continued to pose a serious risk to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the hospital report and the treating psychiatrist's testimony provided a reasonable basis for the Board to conclude that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, particularly to the victim of the index offence and his own family.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a long-time member of the criminal underworld, appealed his sentence for refusing to testify at a murder trial.

He had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with one year of credit for other incarceration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the justice system depends on witnesses testifying as required.

The court held that significant jail terms must be imposed on those who choose to remain aligned with criminal cohorts rather than fulfill their civic duties, affirming that the sentence was entirely fit.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence after pleading guilty to assault causing bodily harm, assault, and three counts of breaching release orders.

He argued his guilty pleas were invalid because they were coerced and uninformed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed based on the trial record and fresh evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence at the expense of rehabilitation.

The sentence was varied to time served (nine months) followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, awaiting a retrial for first-degree murder, had his bail revoked after failing to report to police on Christmas Eve.

He applied for a review of the revocation order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the applicant had been acquitted of the failure to comply charge because he simply forgot to report.

Finding the failure was not deliberate, the Court set aside the revocation order and reinstated the applicant's bail on the original conditions.

The appellant sought to overturn findings of fact made by a motion judge during a costs determination, arguing they would be prejudicial in ongoing litigation due to res judicata.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no free-standing right to appeal findings of fact independent of the costs award.

The Court noted that the application of res judicata and issue estoppel is discretionary, and the appellant could argue before the trial judge that they should not apply given the context of the findings.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment ordering the return of a $250,000 deposit on a failed commercial lease for a sports dome facility.

The respondents had terminated the lease because the facility was not completed by the required date and lacked heat, water, and fire safety access.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the termination clause, finding no ambiguity that would require a trial.

The Court also affirmed that partial summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 20 to resolve the discrete issue of the deposit return, even if it effectively determined liability for the main action and counterclaim.

TCR Holding Corporation amalgamated with several subsidiaries, inadvertently including one that had guaranteed a promissory note to the appellants.

Upon discovering the mistake, TCR applied to set aside the amalgamation.

The application judge granted the order, finding the inclusion was an inadvertent mistake and the appellants would receive a windfall if the amalgamation stood.

The appellants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's exercise of equitable jurisdiction to relieve against mistake and set aside the amalgamation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its certiorari application.

The application sought to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent on a charge of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error and agreeing that a reasonable jury properly instructed could not draw a reasonable inference that the respondent committed the offence.

The plaintiff brought a Small Claims Court action against a court-appointed family law assessor, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis of expert witness immunity and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court overturned the decision, finding that the motion judge erred by making findings of fact on a summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while summary judgment motions are not available under the Small Claims Court Rules, the motion judge's decision was sustainable under rule 12.02 as a motion to strike a claim that is a waste of time.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault, and his 10-year sentence, following a stabbing incident.

He argued the trial judge erred regarding evidence of his right to silence, prior consistent statements, and post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Crown made minor errors regarding the right to silence and prior statements, they caused no substantial prejudice and the curative proviso applied.

The court stayed the aggravated assault conviction under the Kienapple principle but otherwise dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals.

The Ontario Securities Commission appealed a decision dismissing its application to continue directions freezing two offshore funds under s. 126(5) of the Securities Act.

The Commission argued for a new 'contextual reasonableness' standard rather than the established three-part RBC test.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the RBC test—requiring a strong prima facie case of a Securities Act breach, a close connection between the misconduct and the assets, and evidence of potential dissipation—remains the appropriate standard, though it should be applied flexibly.

The Court found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the Commission failed to establish a prima facie case of a breach of the Act linked to the frozen funds.

The appeal was dismissed.