OCA 2011

The appellant appealed a decision determining he had no ownership interest in a disputed parcel of land.

The appellant argued the application judge lacked jurisdiction to decide ownership, but the Court of Appeal noted the appellant's own Notice of Application sought a declaration of ownership.

The Court found ample evidence supporting the application judge's decision, as the appellant's title only conveyed part of Lot 4, and the survey he relied upon erroneously included part of Lot 1.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no material errors and that the findings of fact were supported by the record.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking based on his trial counsel's advice that police surveillance recordings confirmed reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest.

Prior to sentencing, the appellant retained new counsel and moved to set aside the plea, arguing it was uninformed because trial counsel had misheard the recordings.

The trial judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal listened to the recordings and found no evidence supporting the observations trial counsel claimed to have heard.

The Court held that the guilty plea was uninformed because it was grounded on a critical misapprehension of information regarding the viability of the appellant's only defence.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty plea set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation at a bar.

At trial, her counsel failed to request a booking videotape that showed her wearing flat-soled boots, contradicting a key Crown witness who testified the assailant wore high heels.

The summary conviction appeal judge refused to admit the videotape as fresh evidence, finding it would not have affected the verdict.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, admitted the fresh evidence, and ordered a new trial, holding that the videotape was highly relevant to the reliability of the Crown's identification evidence and the appellant's credibility.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences relating to the attempted exportation of restricted pressure transducers to Iran, including violations of the United Nations Act, Customs Act, and Criminal Code.

On appeal, he challenged the trial judge's interpretation of the technical specifications for the restricted goods and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly interpreted the specifications and reasonably concluded the appellant knowingly attempted to supply the goods to a person in Iran.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the sentence on the UN offence because the trial judge erred in treating an unproven link to Iran's nuclear enrichment program as an aggravating factor.

The respondents obtained summary judgment in the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court against the appellants on personal guarantees.

The respondents applied to enforce the judgments in Ontario.

The appellants argued the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed this argument, noting the appellants had raised the issue in Louisiana and failed to appeal the foreign court's ruling that it had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not open to the appellants to re-litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Ontario after participating in the foreign proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdictional ruling.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent estate enjoyed a prescriptive easement over a disputed driveway.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the continuous, frequent, uninterrupted, open, and peaceful use of the driveway without express permission since 1978 by the deceased and her family members established a prescriptive easement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favour of the respondents, her former solicitors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was without merit and barred by the principle of res judicata, as a previous action against the same defendants had already been dismissed.

The court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence and declined to award costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting expert police evidence regarding a 'code of silence' in the community where the shooting occurred.

The Crown introduced this evidence to explain why the sole eyewitness initially lied to police about witnessing the murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was relevant and necessary to provide context for the witness's behaviour, and that the trial judge implemented extraordinary safeguards to prevent prejudice, including prohibiting the word 'gang' and providing clear limiting instructions to the jury.

The mother appealed a decision granting Crown wardship with no access for her two younger children.

The trial judge had differentiated the situation of the older children, who were given a chance to reintegrate with the mother, from the younger children, who were doing well in foster care and had no alternative placement if reintegration failed.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's individual assessment of the best interests of each child and upheld the disposition of Crown wardship with no access.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in 1995 for the death of her two-and-a-half-year-old son, based largely on the flawed pathological evidence of Dr. Charles Smith, who testified the child died of asphyxia.

Following a reinvestigation of Dr. Smith's cases, the Supreme Court of Canada remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to consider fresh evidence.

The fresh expert evidence demonstrated that the cause of death was unascertained and that Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) could not be excluded.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, found the conviction constituted a miscarriage of justice, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The Crown appealed sentence arising from historical sexual offences committed against two complainants, including indecent assault of a child involving digital penetration and intercourse, and a separate sexual touching offence against a teenage babysitter.

The court held that the sentence of one year imprisonment followed by a consecutive one year conditional sentence was outside the proper range for serious sexual offences committed by a person in a position of trust.

While recognizing the offender was not in the exact position of a parent, the court concluded that a penitentiary sentence was required.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentence was increased to a total of three years and six months' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant understood her rights and therefore no breach occurred.

The court further noted that even if a breach had occurred, the breathalyzer results would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant, a young person, appealed his convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

The convictions were based on the testimony of a single complainant regarding historical sexual activities.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly apply the criminal standard of proof, noting her inadequate treatment of significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and her problematic formulation of her ultimate conclusion.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for mens rea and that the evidence did not support the finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge stated and applied the correct legal test.

The Court found the evidence fully supported the finding of recklessness, as the appellant spent nine hours at the complainant's business without a legitimate purpose, was obsessed with the complainant, and was aware of the risk his conduct harassed her.

The appellant, a first offender, appealed a custodial sentence imposed for a non-violent offence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons for imposing jail were completely inadequate.

The Crown conceded that the objective of general deterrence could be met with a non-custodial sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years of probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired operation, which had been upheld by a summary conviction appeal judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge failed to mention or apply the W.(D.) principles regarding credibility and the burden of proof, and failed to address defence evidence bearing on culpability.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiffs, family members of a young man fatally shot by police, sued the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) for negligent investigation.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The motion judge and Divisional Court allowed the claim to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that it was plain and obvious that the SIU does not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime or their families.

The SIU's statutory duty is owed to the public at large, and recognizing a private duty would conflict with its overarching public mandate.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for possession for the purpose of trafficking in slightly more than a pound of cocaine.

The Court of Appeal noted that the normal range for a first-time offender in such cases is 5 to 8 years, and the sentence imposed fell below this norm.

However, due to unusual circumstances involving fairness concerns regarding how the respondent was persuaded to plead and litigation risks, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in drawing inferences from video evidence regarding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's blow significantly contributed to the victim's rupture was amply supported by the record.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.