OCA 2016

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The amicus curiae argued the appeal judge improperly considered the appellant's subsequent involuntary patient status, the Board's decision was unreasonable, and the appellant was denied a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appeal judge only used the subsequent status as background, there was ample evidence of the appellant's inability to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decisions due to delusions, and any curtailment of cross-examination was on tangential matters.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her appeal from a Crown wardship order regarding three of her children.

She argued the children should be placed with their maternal grandmother, that she received inadequate representation at trial, and that the respondent society failed to investigate the grandmother as a placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the inadequate representation claim and agreeing with the trial judge's concerns about the grandmother's suitability given her own child protection history.

The appellants appealed from a motion judge's dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's claims as statute-barred.

The motion judge had found that the respondent lacked standing to bring a fraudulent conveyance claim prior to the appointment of a receiver, and that the appellants had concealed facts necessary to support the claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's findings on discoverability and concealment were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

Following an appeal, the parties made submissions on costs.

On agreement, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $12,500 plus HST, and the interveners to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $7,000 plus HST.

The court declined the appellant's request that the interveners pay his costs of the appeal, noting that claim should be made in pending proceedings between them.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no air of reality to his defence of duress.

The appellant claimed he was forced to transport drugs to pay off a $40,000 debt to an unsavoury character who threatened him and his family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant had safe avenues of escape, such as going to the police or liquidating his RRSPs, and therefore failed to establish an air of reality to the defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving a young person, arguing the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, misapprehended evidence, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his pubic hair colour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) test.

While the trial judge misapprehended some evidence, it did not play an essential part in the reasoning process.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine and his 24-month conditional sentence.

He argued the trial judge reversed the burden of proof, relied on unraised issues, and rendered irreconcilable verdicts by acquitting him of possessing proceeds of crime while convicting him of trafficking.

He also argued his sentence was disproportionate compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or verdicts, and concluding the conditional sentence was fit given the nature of the offence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he remain under a conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating physician's opinion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the public if he discontinued his medication.

The Board had appropriately recognized the appellant's progress by reducing his conditions, and left open the possibility of an absolute discharge at the next annual hearing.

The appellant, Pro-Demnity Insurance Company, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) seeking a determination that s. 2(5) of the Architects Act does not prevent it from expanding its insurance business.

The application judge held he had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding it more appropriate for the Superintendent of Financial Services to determine the question in the context of the appellant's pending licence amendment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's discretionary decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple offences, including attempted murder and forcible confinement, arising from the abduction of the complainant at gunpoint.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the potential contamination of the complainant's identification evidence from a YouTube video and by misapprehending evidence regarding the attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was alive to the potential contamination issue and properly relied on the extensive one-on-one time the complainant spent with the appellant.

The Court also held that the trial judge reasonably concluded, based on an objective assessment of the evidence, that the appellant pointed an operable firearm at the complainant's head and pulled the trigger with the expectation of shooting her.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and her six-month custodial sentence.

The appellant argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the traffic stop and search, and that the evidence should be excluded under s 24(2) of the Charter due to a s 10(b) breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the stop was justified under the Highway Traffic Act and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the smell of marijuana and other observations.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in principle and noting the significant quantity of marijuana and the appellant's perjured testimony.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action for catastrophic injury Statutory Accident Benefits as statute-barred under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act.

The motion judge had distinguished the Divisional Court's decision in Do v. Guarantee Insurance Co., finding that the insurer's denial of catastrophic status included language denying increased benefits, thereby triggering the two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the insurer's language merely indicated a lack of status to claim increased benefits and did not constitute a denial of specific benefits.

The motion judge's order was set aside.

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellant appealed his effective sentence of 16 months following guilty pleas to driving offences and possession of stolen property.

The trial judge had imposed a 9-month sentence (in addition to 7 months of pretrial custody) to allow the appellant to attend the Ontario Correctional Institute, which required a 9-month minimum.

After the appellant was rejected from the program, he appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the 5 months originally requested by the Crown, noting the appellant's genuine remorse.

The appellant appealed a conviction but failed to surrender into custody as required by the judicial release order.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's claim for amounts owed upon termination of employment.

The appellants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the respondent's alleged post-termination breach of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged breach was not part of the settlement and that a boilerplate preamble could not reasonably be interpreted to include it.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a breach of his section 14 Charter right to an interpreter.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the ineffective assistance claim but found no miscarriage of justice, noting trial counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable.

The Court rejected the section 14 claim, finding the appellant understood the proceedings and did not require an interpreter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded damages by a jury.

The jury questions lumped together damages for medical/rehabilitation, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The trial judge reduced these awards to nil under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act because the appellant had already received statutory accident benefits exceeding the jury's award.

The appellant appealed, arguing the reduction was improper without a benefit-by-benefit breakdown.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably reduced the award to prevent double recovery, despite the poorly structured jury questions.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against one driver.

He later amended his claim to add a second driver as a defendant, and the first driver crossclaimed against the second driver.

The second driver successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred, but the motion judge refused to dismiss the crossclaim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, finding the motion judge erred by conflating a lack of due diligence with the actual date of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court dismissed the second driver's cross-appeal regarding the crossclaim, upholding the motion judge's finding on when the claim for contribution and indemnity was reasonably discoverable.