OCA 2015

The appellant husband appealed judgments in a debt action and a matrimonial proceeding.

In the debt action, the trial judge found the husband jointly liable with his former wife for three loans advanced by her father.

In the matrimonial proceeding, the trial judge ordered spousal support, child support including section 7 expenses, and determined equalization amounts without discounting the wife's debts to her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or assessment of credibility.

The appellant, a convicted drug dealer, appealed a full forfeiture order of his residential property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The property was heavily fortified and used for commercial cocaine distribution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the property was a fortified drug property and that full forfeiture was not disproportionate given the nature of the offences, the appellant's extensive criminal record, and his ties to organized crime.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The jury convicted the appellant driver of dangerous driving causing death but acquitted him of dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from the same incident.

The Court of Appeal found the verdicts irreconcilably inconsistent, as both charges relied on the same evidence regarding the identity of the driver and the nature of the driving.

The conviction for dangerous driving causing death was quashed and an acquittal entered due to issue estoppel.

The related convictions for obstructing police and being an accessory after the fact were also quashed, with a new trial ordered for the obstruction charges.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sought an adjournment, which was refused.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that although the original Superior Court action claimed a higher amount, it was settled together with a small claims court action for a global amount within the jurisdiction of the small claims court.

Therefore, any appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to appoint her as estate trustee during litigation to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty owed to their late mother.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, agreeing that the appellant would be in a conflict of interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the motion judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay full indemnity costs, and reduced the award to partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions and nine-year sentence for sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation involving two foster children.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, failing to caution the jury on potential tainting, and failing to enter Kienapple stays.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the admission of similar fact evidence or the jury instructions, but granted Kienapple stays on the sexual assault counts.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's deteriorating health did not render the otherwise fit sentence unfit.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences after police found him in the backyard of a townhouse while responding to a 911 call.

The police placed him under investigative detention for trespassing and, after observing suspicious movements indicating he might be armed, conducted a safety search that revealed a loaded handgun and drugs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the safety search was unlawful and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the safety search was justified by a reasonable belief that officer safety was at stake, and upholding the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence despite minor s. 10 Charter breaches.

In an addendum to a previous decision allowing the appeal and restoring the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision, the Court of Appeal clarified the timeline for an estoppel period.

Responding to a letter from the respondent's counsel, the court confirmed its intention that the new two-year estoppel period originally set by the OLRB would start again on the date of the court's decision.

The appellants were passengers injured when another passenger, who was experiencing delusions, grabbed the steering wheel of a Greyhound bus, causing it to crash.

The appellants sued the bus company, the driver, and police officers who had interacted with the passenger before he boarded.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care by any of the respondents.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred by excluding expert evidence on police crisis management and bus safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his gatekeeper function in excluding the expert evidence because it was not necessary to assist the trier of fact in determining the applicable standards of care.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and perfect the appeal in a class proceeding regarding franchise volume rebates.

The delay was caused by an administrative error.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the delay was short and explained, the proposed appeal lacked any merit as it challenged purely factual findings without providing any basis for the appeal.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the at-fault driver.

When the defendant's insurer took an off-coverage position, the plaintiffs' counsel attempted to add the plaintiffs' own insurer to the action for underinsured coverage.

After a motion judge directed counsel to bring the motion on notice due to a potential limitation period issue, counsel instead commenced a new action against the insurer.

The motion judge in the new action struck the claim as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while ignoring the direction was a minor abuse of process, striking the claim and potentially depriving the plaintiffs of underinsured coverage was a disproportionate penalty.

The court instead penalized the plaintiffs by denying them the costs of the motion and the appeal.

The Crown applied to revoke the respondent's release pending his conviction appeal for second-degree murder.

The respondent, while bound by a recognizance prohibiting communication with trial witnesses, approached the forensic pathologist who testified at his trial at a gas station and discussed the case.

The respondent was subsequently charged with breaching his recognizance.

The Court of Appeal found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent breached his release conditions and committed an indictable offence.

The respondent failed to show cause why his detention was not justified.

The release order was revoked and the recognizance cancelled.

Following the release of the court's reasons on appeal, the parties agreed to set aside the trial judge's costs award.

On consent, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay the respondents costs in the amount of $355,000, plus disbursements and applicable taxes.