OCA 2020

The appellant appealed his convictions and 6-year sentence for internet luring, sexual interference, and sexual assault of a developmentally delayed child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment, which relied on corroborating electronic messages showing grooming behaviour.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the exploitation of a highly vulnerable child.

However, the court stayed the sexual assault charge to avoid double jeopardy.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for arson in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health facility.

He argued the Board erred by failing to consider all relevant factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that a conditional discharge was the least onerous disposition necessary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the appellant's risk of violent confrontations and inability to manage the stresses of community living required the supervision of a detention order.

The infant plaintiff suffered significant injuries after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs moved to extend the time to set the action down for trial, and the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The Master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, which was upheld by the Superior Court and Divisional Court on the basis that the court retained inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials without consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly requires the consent of the parties to bifurcate any proceeding, whether jury or non-jury, thereby ousting the court's inherent jurisdiction to do so without consent.

The buyers appealed a partial summary judgment declaring they breached two agreements of purchase and sale for abutting residential properties.

The buyers argued the agreements were void for contravening the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act and that the seller tendered defective closing documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the parties intended a simultaneous conveyance that complied with the Planning Act, and the seller's tender was valid.

Although the Court criticized the use of partial summary judgment in this context, it declined to set aside the judgment as doing so would only cause further delay and expense.

The appellant pled guilty to robbery and using an imitation firearm and was sentenced to a global custodial sentence of 23.5 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying Gladue principles, failed to consider rehabilitation, and that the sentence should be reconsidered due to the Sharma decision and COVID-19 lockdowns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge appropriately applied Gladue principles, considered rehabilitation, and already accounted for COVID-19 hardships.

A conditional sentence was unavailable as the sentence was not less than two years.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that overturned the accused's convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration.

The appeal judge had found that the Crown failed to prove a breath demand was made, which precluded reliance on the evidentiary shortcuts in former ss. 258(1)(c) and (g) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, confirming that while the lawfulness of a demand need not be proven to use the shortcuts, the fact that a demand was made is a condition precedent.

The Court also agreed that the defence's failure to object to the certificate's admissibility when tendered did not prevent them from arguing in closing that the Crown failed to prove an essential element of the offence.

The appellant appealed her convictions for uttering forged prescriptions and possession of stolen property, as well as her 18-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals for uttering forged documents, finding no fatal errors in the Crown's examination of an accomplice or the trial judge's Vetrovec warning.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the possession of stolen property charge and ordered a new trial, as the jury was not properly instructed on the elements of theft, specifically 'fraudulently' and 'without colour of right'.

The sentence for the uttering charges was varied to a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference involving a child.

At trial, the evidence of the complainant and the appellant was diametrically opposed.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, stating that the two versions could not both be true and rejecting the appellant's evidence based on her acceptance of the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred by treating the case as a credibility contest rather than assessing whether the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt, and by misapplying the principles for rejecting an accused's evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) test.

The appellant had grabbed the complainant from behind, claiming he mistakenly believed she was his girlfriend.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and convicted him.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to properly apply the second step of the W.(D.) test by not considering whether the exculpatory evidence of the appellant's girlfriend raised a reasonable doubt.

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

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the self-represented appellant and fixed in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery of a package containing cocaine hidden in food items.

On appeal, they argued the verdicts were unreasonable because the importation was complete before they handled the package, and that the circumstantial evidence did not prove they knew the package contained drugs.

They also argued the trial judge erred in leaving wilful blindness with the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the ultimate domestic recipient was the importer, the circumstantial evidence supported the jury's inference of knowledge, and the inherently suspicious circumstances justified the wilful blindness instruction.

Following the disposition of the appeal, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

The successful respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant was ordered to pay $6,375.58 to the respondent university and $6,000 to the respondent professional corporation and individual.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction simpliciter over the respondent's action and that Ontario was not forum non conveniens.

The underlying action involved claims for breach of contract, negligence, and other torts arising from a share purchase agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Van Breda presumptive connecting factors for jurisdiction, and no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision regarding forum non conveniens.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing an error in the calculation of his pre-trial custody credit.

The Crown conceded the appeal, acknowledging that the parties made a mathematical error at trial.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, allowed the appeal, and reduced the appellant's sentence by 257 days.

The appellant was charged with failing to comply with orders under the Building Code Act requiring him to obtain building permits or remove structures.

At trial, he argued he had obtained permits for some buildings and no permits were required for others.

The appeal judge convicted him, finding these defences were impermissible collateral attacks on the orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that arguing compliance (having permits) is not a collateral attack, restoring those acquittals.

However, arguing no permits were required is an impermissible collateral attack, so those convictions were upheld.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change spousal and child support orders.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to deteriorating health and an inability to work as an insurance broker.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant was intentionally underemployed to avoid support obligations, noting that the medical evidence could have been presented at the original trial but was withheld as a trial strategy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant was electrocuted by stray voltage from a light pole at a municipally-owned soccer field.

The damage to the pole was caused by a lightning strike.

The appellants sued under the Occupiers' Liability Act, but the trial judge dismissed the action, finding the municipality met the standard of care.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his factual findings regarding the timing of the lightning strike and in admitting and relying on the respondent's expert evidence regarding the inefficacy of pen testers to detect stray voltage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's factual findings or evidentiary rulings.

The applicant pleaded guilty to sexual assault and distributing intimate images without consent and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending his conviction and sentence appeal, alleging his guilty plea was not informed and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to raise any arguable grounds of appeal and that his continued detention was necessary in the public interest due to the seriousness of the offences.

The appellant Registrar appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the respondent funeral home's low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis operation posed a risk to public health and safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the onus was on the Registrar to prove the risk, not on the respondent to prove safety.

The Court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the precautionary principle did not apply and that conditions should not be imposed on the business.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision where he struck a parked crash truck.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility based on his failure to mention an obstructing van during a 9-1-1 call and the development of his testimony, and that the finding of impairment was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the 9-1-1 call was properly used as a prior inconsistent statement and that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find impairment.