OCA 2020

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding them only $5,000 in damages against their former real estate lawyer for a title defect error.

The trial judge found the lawyer breached his duty of care but concluded the appellants' significant claims for reduction in property value, carrying costs, and business losses were not caused by the title defect, but rather by the appellants overpricing the property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation, damages, or the exclusion of expert evidence.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order of $125,000 per month following a 24-year marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the respondent's needs and means, misapplied the Halliwell principle for high-income earners, and erred in awarding indefinite support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's compensatory entitlement, needs, and means, and confirming that the trial judge properly conducted an individualized fact-specific analysis.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and the mandatory victim fine surcharge following convictions for criminal harassment and breaching a Long-Term Supervision Order.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by relying on a victim impact statement without cross-examination, and by finding his conduct met the threshold for a serious personal injury offence and the criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the designation, finding no error in the sentencing judge's reliance on the victim impact statement or his application of the dangerous offender provisions.

The appeal against the victim fine surcharge was allowed on consent.

The appellant sued the respondents in negligence, alleging that the respondents improperly obtained an enforcement order during garnishment proceedings which caused the appellant's employer to terminate his employment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no duty of care was owed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that a judgment creditor seeking to realize on a judgment through garnishment proceedings does not owe a duty of care to the debtor to avoid causing harm to the debtor's ongoing employment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the stabbing death of her former boyfriend.

At trial, the Crown cross-examined its own key witness on a prior inconsistent statement without bringing an application under section 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, and subsequently used the inconsistency to impeach the witness's credibility during closing submissions.

The trial judge permitted this use and instructed the jury accordingly.

The Court of Appeal held that this improper cross-examination and the subsequent use of the evidence prejudiced the appellant's defence, rendering the trial unfair.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

The complainant, who was heavily intoxicated and found to be unconscious at the start of the sexual activity, testified that he awoke to being fellated by the appellant and did not consent.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that any error regarding Browne v. Dunn was immaterial, as the appellant's own evidence showed he took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent, depriving him of the defence of mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs, which were reduced to reflect a lack of success on a residential tenancy issue.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 for the appeal and $15,000 for the application, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Ten days after the Court of Appeal granted summary judgment authorizing the responding party to enforce its mortgage, the moving parties brought a motion seeking to declare the enforcement proceedings null and void.

The moving parties argued they were commercial farmers and had not received the required notice under s. 21 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the moving parties were barred from raising the issue at this late stage since mortgage enforceability was squarely at issue on the appeal.

The court found no credible evidence that the moving party was a commercial farmer and deemed the motion an abuse of process intended to delay creditors.

The appellant, a general contractor, appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that the City of Toronto pay a construction holdback of $174,381.14.

The parties had previously entered into a global settlement of five lawsuits for $1,287,500, signing a release for all outstanding claims.

The appellant argued the holdback funds were impressed with a trust under the Construction Lien Act and separate from the settlement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the unambiguous terms of the settlement and release covered all claims, including the holdbacks, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking offences after police found cocaine during a search incident to arrest.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding no section 10(b) Charter breach when police delayed his access to counsel for 3.5 hours while preparing a search warrant for his residence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the delay was justified by officer and public safety concerns due to credible information that the appellant possessed a long firearm.

The applicant, who was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference, brought motions for bail pending appeal and for the appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code.

The bail application was adjourned to allow the applicant's counsel to review newly disclosed information regarding the applicant's refugee status.

The motion for the appointment of counsel was granted, as the applicant's limited English skills and the presence of an arguable ground of appeal regarding uneven scrutiny of evidence made it desirable in the interests of justice to appoint counsel.

The successful purchasers in a specific performance action moved to expedite the vendors' appeals, require security for costs, and lift the stay of the trial judge's cost order.

A non-party law firm, acting as an execution creditor, moved to intervene and delay the purchasers' motion pending a priority dispute in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to expedite the appeals, noting the purchasers withdrew their other requests.

The intervention motion was dismissed, as the priority dispute among creditors was properly a matter for the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder following a fatal stabbing in his apartment building.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting his statement to police as voluntary, alleging an oppressive atmosphere and improper inducements, and by providing an inadequate jury instruction on self-defence regarding his role as the initial aggressor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police conduct was not oppressive and the trial judge's jury instructions correctly equipped the jury to assess the reasonableness of the appellant's actions in self-defence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The trial judge had stated she was confident of the appellant's guilt but reserved her reasons to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

However, no written or oral reasons for conviction were ever delivered.

The Crown conceded the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the lack of reasons prevented appellate review.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding the timeline of events and failed to adequately address inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the timeline discrepancy went only to the reliability of time estimates rather than core credibility, and that the trial judge had ample corroborating evidence to support his findings.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences relating to a residential break-in and theft of firearms.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in denying him standing to challenge a warrantless search of his girlfriend's vehicle, unfairly dismissed his s. 8 Charter challenges and Garofoli application, and erred in finding reasonable grounds for search warrants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge acted unfairly in summarily dismissing the Garofoli application and standing arguments without hearing submissions, no miscarriage of justice occurred because the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

Prior to the resolution of the appeal, the appellant died.

Counsel for the appellant filed a Notice of Abatement, and the Court of Appeal ordered the file closed as abated.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law application regarding child support for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the remedy was not excessive given the appellant had breached six previous orders and received multiple warnings.

The court also upheld the motion judge's award of full recovery costs based on a finding of bad faith.

The appellant appealed the quantum of damages awarded in its action for breach of contract regarding contaminated scaffolding equipment.

The trial judge had awarded damages based on a finding that 40% of the scaffolding had to be scrapped due to contamination.

The appellant argued that 100% of the scaffolding should have been deemed valueless.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the conflicting expert evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms offences and was sentenced to four years in custody.

At sentencing, he sought additional credit for pre-sentence custody due to harsh conditions at the detention centre, specifically that his leg injuries prevented him from accessing the yard.

The sentencing judge granted standard 1.5:1 credit but refused additional credit, disbelieving the appellant's claims.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence of complaints made to the Ombudsman.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the sentencing judge made no error in principle in exercising her discretion.