OCA 2014

The appellants appealed a motion judge's declaration that a condominium corporation is a homeowner for the purpose of the warranty provisions of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants argued that the definitions of 'home' and 'owner' in section 1 of the Act do not apply to a condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 15(a) of the Act clearly deems a condominium corporation to be the owner of the common elements for the purposes of the warranty provisions.

The appellant tenant appealed a ruling that a commercial lease and its right of first refusal were properly terminated by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had unconditionally accepted a third-party offer to purchase the leased premises without first notifying the tenant or allowing it to match the offer, and then purported to terminate the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the landlord was obliged to inform the tenant of the offer and afford it an opportunity to match before unconditionally accepting the third-party offer.

The court ordered the landlord to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with the tenant on the same terms.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board refusing an absolute discharge and continuing a conditional discharge.

The Board concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high likelihood of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication if discharged absolutely.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the expert opinion of a consulting forensic psychiatrist regarding the appellant's fluctuating insight into his condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, trustees of a pension fund, sought leave under the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a $4 billion class action against Kinross Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations regarding two gold mines.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claims due to flawed expert evidence, and consequently denied certification for the common law claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the motion judge's assessment of the leave test and concluding that a class action was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims due to the need for individualized inquiries into reliance.

The appellant, a deaf individual with limited communication skills, was involuntarily committed under the Mental Health Act and detained in a maximum security psychiatric facility for 19 years.

He challenged the constitutionality of the involuntary committal provisions under s. 7 of the Charter and alleged a violation of his s. 15(1) equality rights due to inadequate sign language interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Mental Health Act violates s. 7 when applied to long-term detainees because the Consent and Capacity Board lacks the authority to ensure that liberty is restricted no more than necessary.

The Court also found a violation of s. 15(1) due to the systemic failure to provide adequate interpretation services.

The Court severed the words 'or subsequent' from s. 20(4)(b)(iii) of the Act, suspending the declaration of invalidity for 12 months, and granted a declaration of the appellant's equality rights.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for second degree murder and assault with a weapon, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had upheld restrictions on his liberty and imposed a hybrid disposition, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety due to aggressive behaviour and non-compliance with medication.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge under s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and that the hybrid disposition was the least restrictive and appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's contempt findings and the associated costs award of $40,000 on a full indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt findings, noting they were supported by the evidentiary record and adverse credibility findings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding costs, reducing the $40,000 award to $25,000, as the original amount exceeded the respondent's claimed costs and was disproportionate to the appellant's costs.

Other costs rulings were confirmed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and attempted kidnapping, was detained at a mental health facility.

His treating physician found him incapable of consenting to antipsychotic medication for his delusional disorder, a finding confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board and upheld by the Superior Court.

On appeal, the appellant argued the physician's evidence was uncorroborated and the incapacity finding was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the physician's evidence was corroborated by the appellant's own testimony and documentary evidence, and the board's conclusion that the appellant could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing medication was reasonable.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed his conviction for failing to stop at a red light under the Provincial Offences Act.

He argued his right to make full answer and defence was violated because the prosecutor did not advise him of his right to disclosure, and the Justice of the Peace failed to assist him.

The City conceded that the appellant was not adequately informed of his right to disclosure and that significant video evidence had been lost.

Based on these concessions, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The Court declined to rule on the broader constitutional and procedural issues regarding disclosure for unrepresented litigants, finding them moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, which occurred during a car theft.

The Crown's case relied heavily on a confession the appellant made to three associates, one of whom recanted his preliminary inquiry testimony at trial.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting the recanted testimony under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, in instructing the jury on collusion, in refusing to grant a mistrial when another witness refused to testify, and that the first-degree murder conviction based on unlawful confinement was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that it was open to the jury to find the murder was committed during a distinct act of unlawful confinement.

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

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

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed the Chief Justice's summary dismissal of his complaint against a Case Management Master.

The appellant alleged the Master lacked integrity and impartiality, and that the Chief Justice exceeded her jurisdiction and denied him procedural fairness by asking the Master for comments without disclosing them or referring the matter to a committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief Justice had clear authority under s. 86.2(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to dispose of groundless complaints summarily and was not precluded from seeking the Master's comments.

The appellant appealed a conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the trial judge's credibility assessments are entitled to deference and the reasons provided ample explanation for accepting the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, except for a stay of the conviction on count 1 under the Kienapple principle.

The respondent, a 16-year-old driver, drove through a stop sign at 80 km/h on an unfamiliar rural road, lost control on a curve, and crashed into a concrete bridge.

He sued the municipality for non-repair, arguing it should have posted a warning sign for the curve.

The trial judge found the municipality 50% liable, holding that ordinary rural drivers do not always stop at stop signs and the curve was a hidden hazard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal and dismissed the action, holding that a municipality's statutory duty of repair is limited to ensuring roads are safe for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care.

The municipality has no duty to keep roads safe for negligent drivers who ignore stop signs.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for failing or refusing to comply with a demand to give a breath sample without reasonable excuse.

He argued that he was arbitrarily detained, that the trial judge erred in finding he had the requisite mens rea, and that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal were weak and had no significance to the administration of justice.

The court held that mere contact with a police officer does not constitute arbitrary detention, the trial judge correctly applied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for mens rea, and there was no misapprehension of evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the defendant doctor regarding care during pregnancy and delivery.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it lacked sufficient particulars of the alleged negligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that a plaintiff in a medical negligence action is not required to obtain an expert opinion before pleading, and that the material facts pleaded were sufficient to enable the defendant to deliver a statement of defence.

The appellant sued her former solicitors in professional negligence.

The firm successfully brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, the retainer dispute was not res judicata, and the motions judge erred in dismissing the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, that the fee dispute was settled and res judicata, and that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the alleged negligence caused her damages.

No costs were awarded due to the appellant's impecuniosity.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge granting summary judgment and awarding costs to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons for summary judgment or the costs award, noting the costs award was not unreasonable or erroneous in principle.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision regarding the appointment of an umpire for an insurance appraisal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

The court was satisfied that the appointed umpire was appropriately qualified and found no evidence of bad faith.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her evidence that she feared police would seize her money as proceeds of crime after returning it the previous day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inference was reasonably available on the evidence and there was no basis to interfere with the credibility assessment.