OCA 2010

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal and the value of his shares under a shareholders' agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's shares had not been validly purchased upon his termination and that he was entitled to participate in the proceeds of the company's subsequent sale.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to reduce wrongful dismissal damages for failure to mitigate.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the award for dividends on Class B preferred shares because the respondent's option agreement explicitly precluded dividend rights until the option was exercised.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearm offences following a shooting outside a Toronto nightclub.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the eyewitness identification evidence and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and that the identification by two independent witnesses, corroborated by gunshot residue on the appellant's hands, provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable trier of fact to convict.

The tenant appealed the terms of relief from forfeiture granted by the application judge after being found in breach of a commercial lease for permitting loitering and failing to comply with the Liquor License Act.

The landlord cross-appealed, arguing the lease should have been terminated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the application judge crafted a balanced remedy and properly exercised his discretion under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The appellants were convicted of numerous firearms offences after police seized over 200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition from their home.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the firearms legislation violated their constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, confirming that Canadians do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the mandatory minimum sentences and the 18-month global sentence as fit and not constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's non-compliance and recent elopement.

However, the Court cautioned the institution and the Board to focus on the objective of the appellant's ultimate reintegration into the community to avoid a situation of impasse.

The respondent pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and two counts of income tax evasion after operating a tax preparation business that submitted false charitable donation receipts, resulting in $3.28 million in improper refunds.

The sentencing judge originally imposed a sentence of one day in jail and a global fine.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence manifestly unfit given the magnitude of the fraud, the breach of trust, and the respondent's pivotal role.

The court substituted a sentence of two years' incarceration and separate fines for each count of tax evasion.

The appellant applied to amend a municipal by-law schedule to permit a second adult entertainment parlour location.

The City refused the application because the proposed location abutted a residential property, contrary to the by-law.

The appellant appealed, alleging bad faith, misinterpretation of 'residence', and procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no bad faith, agreeing the abutting property was a residence despite being unoccupied during renovations, and concluding a full hearing would not have changed the outcome.

The respondent on appeal brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The moving party had successfully applied to enforce Russian arbitration awards against the appellant in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that a respondent on appeal cannot rely on Rule 61.06(1)(b) to obtain security for costs against a defendant/appellant, as no party should have to give security simply to defend itself.

Furthermore, the moving party could not use the 'other good reason' provision in Rule 61.06(1)(c) to bypass this restriction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence of his knowledge or control of the drugs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that circumstantial evidence—including the drugs' plain view on the vehicle's centre console, their proximity to the appellant, and the presence of cash and cell phones—provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to infer knowledge and control.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault involving two young complainants.

The central issue at trial was credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by treating major contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence as merely peripheral details.

By failing to properly scrutinize these inconsistencies, the trial judge's credibility assessment was flawed.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing phone records evidence and the credibility of a complainant regarding an assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions on the unreliability of the phone records and the credibility of the complainant were open to her and warranted no interference.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of sexual assault against a developmentally challenged adult.

At trial, the judge ruled that the complainant was not competent to testify under section 16 of the Canada Evidence Act because she could not understand the duty to speak the truth.

The trial judge also excluded the complainant's hearsay statements to her teacher and the police, finding them unreliable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's competence ruling was entitled to deference and that Parliament had intentionally created different competence standards for children under 14 and adults with developmental disabilities.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's exclusion of the hearsay statements.

The appellant failed to appear for the appeal hearing despite knowing his counsel was seeking to be removed from the record and that he was required to be present.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs of $1,500 to the respondents.

The appellant union appealed a Divisional Court decision that affirmed an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of s. 56(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appellant's interpretation was reasonable, the arbitrator's interpretation was also within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellant pleaded guilty to eight counts of armed robbery and a weapons offence, receiving a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity, as his co-accused received a lesser sentence for the robberies despite wielding the weapons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the 10-year sentence fit and the disparity justified by the appellant's lengthy criminal record, probation status, and poorer prospects for rehabilitation compared to his co-accused.

The appellant, convicted of first degree murder, brought an application under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for state-funded counsel for his appeal.

He first requested an adjournment because duty counsel was unavailable, which the court denied as he had prior notice the hearing would proceed regardless.

Applying the Bernardo test, the Court of Appeal dismissed the s. 684 application, finding that the appellant, a former police officer, was capable of effectively presenting his appeal and that the court could properly decide the issues without the assistance of counsel.

The court also directed that the appellant be provided access to legal materials in his cell while in segregation.

The appellant appealed an order directing that electronic images of the hard drives of two computers seized from her be sent to France pursuant to warrants issued under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The appellant argued the warrants lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the issuing judge's conclusion that the appellant's common-law spouse was likely communicating with other members of a terrorist plot using the seized computers.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident action sought to bifurcate the trial of liability and damages issues, to be heard by different juries.

The plaintiffs, who had also served a jury notice, opposed the motion.

The Master dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

The Superior Court set aside the Master's order, but the Divisional Court restored it.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to bifurcate a trial where a valid jury notice has been served, absent the consent of the parties, as it would infringe the statutory right to have issues of fact tried by a single jury.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a guarantee and mortgage given as security for legal fees exceeding $350,000.

The appellants had admitted signing the security documents after receiving independent legal advice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial, noting that an outstanding claim against the law firm was not a defence to the enforcement of the guarantee and mortgage.

The appeal was dismissed.