OCA 2012

The appellant vendor sold a property to the respondent purchaser, accepting two assigned mortgages as partial payment.

The appellant subsequently discovered the mortgaged properties were worth significantly less than the face value of the mortgages and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondents, finding no false representation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was a genuine issue for trial as the record contained evidence from which a trial judge could infer that the respondents made false representations by words or conduct regarding the value of the mortgaged properties.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order regarding a real estate transaction.

They argued the motion judge erred in applying the test for uniqueness of the property by giving undue emphasis to subjective elements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the test and was entitled to accept the evidence of the respondent's wife regarding the property's uniqueness.

A cross-appeal by the respondent for further damages was also dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to quash the respondent's amended notice of appeal.

The respondent sought to appeal a judge's decision refusing to grant leave to appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

The Court of Appeal held that no appeal lies from such a refusal unless the judge mistakenly declined jurisdiction.

As the leave judge fully considered the application and did not decline jurisdiction, the appeal was quashed.

The self-represented appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasons regarding guilt.

The court also noted that the sentence had already been served and was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under s. 16 of the Public Officers Act, which alleged that the Human Rights Tribunal was biased.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no foundation in the record to conclude that the Tribunal as a whole was disqualified by interest from acting.

The Court also clarified that previous correspondence and scheduling comments did not direct the appellant to institute the application or halt his human rights complaint.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board made serious errors of law, as there was no positive evidence that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been living in the community for almost five years, adhered to his medication, and had the support of his treatment team for an absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's inference that the appellant knew there was a gun in the car he was driving was logically consistent and reasonably supported by the totality of the evidence, including the time of day, the presence of latex gloves, and the fact that the gun was not hidden.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine.

He argued that the jury verdicts were inconsistent, the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on aiding and abetting, and the trial judge erred in finding he was not entrapped.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions or the entrapment ruling.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 14-month sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed a global sentence of five years for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration and leaving the scene of an accident.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the gap principle, failing to consider his unstable health, and relying on a rejected finding of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle.

The court noted the appellant's extensive record of nearly three dozen prior related convictions and evidence of continued excessive alcohol consumption during the conviction-free period.

The appellant hospital appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for medical malpractice resulting in an infant's permanent brain injury (cerebral palsy) due to oxygen deprivation during birth.

The jury found the attending nurse breached the standard of care by failing to use electronic foetal monitoring and failing to properly perform intermittent auscultation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient expert evidence to support the jury's findings on both the breach of the standard of care and causation, and that the verdict was not plainly unreasonable.

The appellant mother sought leave to appeal a consent order granting shared custody of a two-year-old child, arguing her consent was obtained under duress due to the motion judge's comments.

The Court of Appeal majority held that the order was indeed a consent order requiring leave to appeal under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The majority established that leave to appeal a consent order involving children requires an arguable case that the order was not in the child's best interests or that consent was vitiated by factors like duress.

Finding no evidence of duress on the record, the majority dismissed the application for leave to appeal, without prejudice to the mother bringing a motion to set aside the order under rule 59.06(2).

The dissenting judge would have granted leave and allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by failing to fully consider the child's best interests.

The appellants appealed a judgment deciding a matter by way of application, arguing that disputed facts precluded this procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while peripheral facts were disputed, the facts necessary to dispose of the application were not.

The court also granted leave to appeal the initial costs award, reducing it based on the proportionality principle, and awarded costs for the stay application and the appeal to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 6 years net (8 years total) for 32 convictions, including break and enter, dangerous driving, and possession of stolen property.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no causal link between his illness and his criminal conduct, and no evidence that a lengthy sentence would have a severe negative effect on him.

A corrigendum was later issued to correct an error regarding the sentence for breach of probation.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment, arguing the respondent failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an oral offer of re-employment and missing a job interview.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's request for a written offer and legal advice was reasonable, and his overall mitigation efforts were diligent.

The court also declined to interfere with the 22-month notice period and the trial costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent former employee damages for lost long-term disability (LTD) benefits and punitive damages following a wrongful dismissal.

The respondent had been diagnosed with cancer after finding alternate employment and claimed he would have been entitled to LTD benefits under the appellant's plan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the LTD benefits award, finding sufficient medical and vocational evidence that the respondent was totally disabled and incapable of working, thus negating any failure to mitigate.

However, the Court set aside the $15,000 punitive damages award because it had not been pleaded or sought at trial.

The appellant, plaintiff in a personal injury action where liability was admitted, sought a six-month adjournment of the trial because she lacked up-to-date medical reports.

The motion judge denied the request, citing delays and fading memories, which led to the action being dismissed when the appellant called no evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge failed to consider that liability was admitted and that the respondents would suffer no non-compensable prejudice from a short adjournment.

The action was reinstated and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by relying on the appellant's testimony from a pre-trial Charter voir dire to determine guilt at trial.

The appellant argued this error should result in an acquittal due to a lack of evidence linking the drugs seized to the Health Canada certificate of analysis.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding a sufficient link, and ordered a new trial based on the trial judge's error.

The applicant in an extradition proceeding brought a motion for the production of documents, to cross-examine the certifying U.S. attorney, and to examine her prior counsel.

The applicant sought to explore an allegedly untruthful statement in the Record of the Case regarding her history of drug trafficking in Canada, arguing it constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no air of reality to the assertion that the requesting state deliberately attempted to mislead Canadian courts.

The court also found no basis to order the examination of prior counsel regarding an allegation of ineffective assistance.

The appellant was convicted of robbery of a convenience store as a party to the offence.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and wrongly used his utterances to police to draw an inference of guilt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of essential evidence and concluding the circumstantial evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent regarding a loan facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly relied on the documentary record, which contradicted the appellants' vague assertions.

The Court held that the summary judgment test from Combined Air was met, as a full appreciation of the evidence could be achieved, and declined to draw an adverse inference against the respondent regarding its choice of affiant.