OCA 2014

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice which held that the Landlord and Tenant Board was not a suable entity.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law in the motions judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant, Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc., was successful on a complex motion heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court awarded the appellant costs fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid jointly by the Trustee and Christina Chiang.

The respondent lawyers were victims of a fraud scheme where they deposited counterfeit cheques into their trust accounts and issued instruments payable to 'Nithiyakalyaani Jewellers'.

The instruments were deposited into an account at the appellant bank.

The trial judge found the bank liable in conversion, holding that the payee was not non-existing or fictitious.

The Court of Appeal allowed the bank's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in applying the plausibility doctrine.

Because the respondents had no knowledge of the actual corporation 'Nithiyakalyaani Jewellers Ltd.' when they drew the instruments, the payee was a non-existing person under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act, providing the bank with a complete defence to conversion.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from Ontario Shores to Waypoint.

The appellant conceded he represented a significant threat to public safety and required a custodial order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to transfer the appellant was reasonable, based on the correct legal test, and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action against the police for negligent investigation.

The appellant alleged the police negligently failed to send a needle for communicable disease testing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for a negligence claim because uncontroverted evidence showed that testing the needle was impossible or unreliable, meaning no damages flowed from the failure to test.

The applicant, convicted of preventing electors from voting in the 2011 federal election and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, applied for bail pending his sentence appeal.

The Crown conceded the applicant would surrender into custody but argued the appeal was frivolous and detention was necessary in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding the sentence appeal raised arguable issues given the novelty of the offence, and that the public interest favoured release to ensure the appeal would not be rendered moot before it could be heard.

The parties entered into a joint venture to purchase and convert a property into a self-storage facility, which included a put/call agreement.

The respondent exercised the put, forcing the appellant to purchase the property at a price determined by an appraiser.

The appellant refused to close, alleging the appraiser made a manifest error by not using the income approach.

The trial judge granted specific performance to the respondent and awarded substantial indemnity costs based on an unserved offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the appraisal, upholding the award of specific performance for the vendor, and confirming the costs award.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's class action appeal as statute-barred, the respondent trust companies sought costs.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the action was brought in the public interest and raised a new point of law under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1991.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding no improper conduct by the respondents and concluding that costs should follow the event.

The respondents were awarded their requested costs totaling $61,966.55.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's refusal to dismiss the respondent's application for child support under the Family Law Act.

The appellant argued that the respondent was required to proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act and that Ontario was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act provides an alternative procedure and does not bar a claim under the Family Law Act if the court has jurisdiction.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the child's lifelong residence in the province.

The appellant also failed to establish that another forum was clearly more convenient.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant purchased a condominium townhouse advertised as three storeys, but later discovered the third floor was illegally built into the common element attic space.

She sued the condominium corporation, the property manager, her real estate lawyers, and the vendor.

The Court of Appeal held that the condominium corporation was liable for negligent misstatement for issuing a clean estoppel certificate despite the illegal third floor.

The court upheld the finding of solicitor negligence against the appellant's real estate lawyers for failing to review the vertical survey plans.

Damages were reassessed to compensate the appellant for the lost opportunity of owning a three-storey unit, and punitive damages against the vendor were upheld.

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual abuse against his step-daughter and biological daughter.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility by relying on improper cross-examination about motive to fabricate, failing to address inconsistencies, and improperly relying on the appellant's courtroom demeanour outside the witness box.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cross-examination was proper, the inconsistencies were minor, and the trial judge's modest reliance on courtroom demeanour did not cause a miscarriage of justice given the other cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for threatening death, unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and assault with a weapon, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury instructions regarding consent, failed to provide a limiting instruction on bad character evidence, and presented an unbalanced charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge and no prejudice from the lack of a limiting instruction.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed in part to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1.5:1, varying the sentence accordingly.

The appellants brought an application alleging that the federal and provincial governments violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to implement effective strategies to reduce homelessness and inadequate housing.

The respondents successfully moved to strike the application on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was not justiciable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application raised political rather than legal issues, lacked a judicially discoverable and manageable standard, and was therefore not justiciable.

The appellant, a court-appointed receiver, appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to approve the full amount of legal fees requested on behalf of its counsel.

The motion judge had reduced the fees, finding them disproportionate to the size and complexity of the receivership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the court must ensure compensation is fair and reasonable, focusing on the value provided rather than just the mathematical calculation of hours multiplied by hourly rates.

The motion judge's assessment of the fees as excessive was upheld.

The appellant insurance company appealed a Superior Court judgment that set aside an arbitrator's award regarding insurance coverage.

The issue was whether an 81-year-old man was principally financially dependent on his son at the time of a motor vehicle accident, which would determine which insurer was liable to pay.

The arbitrator found that the man was dependent, applying the Safeco test.

The appeal judge overturned this, finding the arbitrator failed to account for the voluntary nature of the dependency.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's factual determination of dependency was reasonable and entitled to deference, and restored the arbitrator's award.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment that found her liable on promissory notes and for fraudulent misrepresentation, which included an award for punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, noting that the statement of claim and initial affidavit did not allege fraud or that the appellant signed the notes, and a second affidavit was never served.

The findings of fraud, liability on the notes, and punitive damages were set aside, and the costs award below was reduced.

The self-represented appellant sued the Ministry of the Attorney General for malicious prosecution and Charter damages after his criminal conviction was overturned due to the trial Crown's improper comments on his failure to testify.

The motion judge struck the appellant's amended statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that when read generously, the pleadings contained sufficient facts to support allegations of malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause, and granted the appellant leave to further amend his claim.

The court issued an addendum to a previous decision regarding a motion for directions.

The court received a letter from the respondent seeking clarification and providing a new mailing and email address.

The court directed that future service upon the respondent may be made by ordinary mail at both his previous address of service and his newly provided address.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal held that because the appellant was detained under section 524(4) of the Criminal Code, the statute restricted credit to a 1:1 basis rather than 1.5:1.

The appeal was allowed to reflect a corrected effective sentence of 169 days, which had already been served.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order regarding the commencement of limitation periods for insurance benefits.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to clearly assess whether and when the applicable limitation periods commenced in relation to the notices delivered.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside paragraph 1 of the motion judge's order, and remitted the issue to the lower court for determination on a more fulsome evidentiary record.