OCA 2015

The appellant appealed his sentence of 4 years and 10 months.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, the parties agreed the appellant was entitled to enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served, while noting the original sentence length was otherwise warranted.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a conviction and ordering a new trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, finding that the trial judge was entitled to rely on evidence that the officer tested the radar device before and after use and was a qualified operator to establish a prima facie case of accuracy.

The court declined to address whether a broader presumption of accuracy should be created for radar guns.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal involving a class action.

Due to divided success and the plaintiffs' failure to produce a rational and workable class definition, which contributed to delays and added costs, the court ordered no costs in either the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for index offences in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that concluded he constituted a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention without community living privileges.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to address conflicts and ambiguities in the expert evidence regarding whether the appellant posed a significant threat, particularly given his lack of violent offences since 2003.

The matter was returned to the Board for a fresh determination.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, raising grounds of appeal including errors in jury instructions regarding police narrative evidence, eyewitness identification, and prior statements, as well as the trial judge's refusal to quash a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and no basis to interfere with the trial judge's Garofoli analysis regarding the search warrant.

The appellant buyer appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for specific performance and damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The respondent sellers relied on an annulment clause to terminate the agreement after a third party registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation on the property just prior to closing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant's correspondence on the closing date amounted to a demand for clear title rather than a request to extend closing, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and attempted murder.

Representing himself, he argued through amici curiae that the trial judge erred by refusing to allow him to call three witnesses and by inadequately charging the jury on a potentially exculpatory statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his gatekeeper function regarding the witnesses, as the appellant refused to explain their relevance.

The court also held that the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on the appellant's statement that the first shot was a mistake.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from a lower court judgment on the basis that the judgment was an interlocutory order.

The lower court had ruled that contempt proceedings against the responding party were not stayed by his filing for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, but adjourned the contempt motion to a later date.

The Court of Appeal held that because the lower court's ruling deprived the responding party of a substantive defence that could have resolved the proceedings, the order was final.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for a sexual assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued he should be transferred to a general forensic unit or given a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing inappropriate sexual behaviour and the increased risk to others if supervision were decreased.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault offences arising from an incident where police responded to a disconnected 911 call at her residence.

The appellant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, locked herself in her bedroom and subsequently attacked an officer with a knife when police entered.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the police were trespassing, finding they acted reasonably under their duty to protect life.

The court allowed the appeal only to the extent of staying one count under the Kienapple principle and amending another count to particularize the use of a weapon.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment finding it had wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The trial judge found the parties had agreed on the quantum of rent arrears and the landlord had waived any additional amounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on waiver, credibility, tax credits, or compensation for the tenant's equipment left on the premises.

The appellant, a member of a not-for-profit housing co-operative, appealed the dismissal of his application for the appointment of an inspector and a compliance order under the Co-operative Corporations Act.

He alleged a pattern of mismanagement by successive boards of directors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of mismanagement or malfeasance to warrant intervention.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as it related to issues not raised in the initial application.

The appellant was convicted of importing narcotics after a 26-month delay between his arrest and trial.

He appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The appellant contended that the 15.5-month delay caused by his efforts to retain counsel of choice, exacerbated by Legal Aid Ontario's refusal to transfer his certificate, should be characterized as institutional or Crown delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the delay was part of the inherent time requirements of the case and that a s. 11(b) application is not the proper forum to review the reasonableness of Legal Aid Ontario's decisions.

The appellants, a lawyer and his professional corporation, appealed an order dismissing their motion to quash a Registrar's order for the assessment of 51 accounts rendered to the respondent client.

The appellants argued the accounts were for management services, the retainer was in dispute, and the requisition was untimely.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the accounts were for legal services, the retainer was not in dispute, and the overlapping nature of the interim accounts constituted special circumstances justifying the timing of the assessment.

The appellant landlord was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and mischief endangering life after a fatal fire at his rental property.

The property lacked required smoke alarms and violated the Fire Code.

On appeal, the appellant argued his conduct was not the legal cause of the tenant's death, as the tenant stayed in his room to fight the fire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant's failure to install required fire safety systems was a significant contributing cause of the death.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter for his participation in a robbery where a co-assailant shot and killed the victim.

The trial judge sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment, treating the use of a firearm as an aggravating factor despite the mandatory minimum under s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's rehabilitation and held that his failure to cooperate with police was not an aggravating factor.

The court reduced the sentence to six years' imprisonment, balancing the aggravating circumstances of the robbery with the appellant's strong mitigating factors and rehabilitative efforts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting a hearsay statement from the complainant's sister and in accepting the mother's evidence regarding a change in the sisters' relationship.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statement, the curative proviso applied because the trial judge explicitly stated he would have reached the same conclusion without it.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the mother's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Bank appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for knowing assistance in a breach of trust after it allowed a payroll processing company continued access to electronic banking facilities despite knowing of a deficit in a trust account.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for knowing receipt of trust funds regarding a transfer that reduced an overdraft.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the knowledge requirement for knowing assistance and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the Bank had no obligation to inquire into the overdrafts.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the respondent College declaratory and injunctive relief for unauthorized practice and unauthorized use of protected titles.

The appellants argued that the language proficiency requirement in the Registration Regulation was discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the appellants were barred from advancing the constitutional argument due to issue estoppel and abuse of process, as the same issue had been previously decided against them by the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence related to his involvement in two marijuana grow operations.

He argued there was insufficient evidence of his participation and that he was treated unfairly at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample circumstantial evidence that he was a significant participant, including his presence at the locations, delivery of plants, and possession of grow-op paraphernalia.

The court also found the trial was fair and the sentence was within the appropriate range.