Court of Appeal

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings.

The court noted the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, appropriately addressed the complainant's post-offence conduct, and correctly rejected the appellant's explanations regarding DNA evidence.

The moving parties, who were previously declared vexatious litigants, brought multiple motions within an appeal seeking broad procedural and substantive relief.

The motions were brought without obtaining leave from a Superior Court judge, as required by the vexatious litigant order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, holding that while a vexatious litigant order can be appealed without leave, any motions brought within that appeal proceeding still require leave.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The moving parties, whose property was placed in receivership, sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an approval and vesting order, as well as a stay of that order pending appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the extension request, finding the moving parties failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay, the delay prejudiced the receiver, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Consequently, the motion for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed, as there was no active appeal before the court and the balance of convenience favored the receiver.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding their respective appeals of a final family law order.

Both parties sought to dispense with the requirement to order and file trial transcripts due to alleged impecuniosity.

The motion judge dismissed these requests, finding the transcripts were necessary to adjudicate the appeals, which challenged the trial judge's factual findings and procedural fairness.

The applicant also moved for a stay of the child support orders pending appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had sole care of the dependent children.

The court ordered the appeals to be grouped and provided directions for sharing the cost of a consolidated transcript record.

The self-represented moving party sought various forms of relief relating to her appeal of orders directing the partition and sale of two properties and a reference for an accounting.

The motion judge dismissed requests to stay the proceedings, expedite the appeal, and intervene in the ongoing reference, noting that several of the orders appealed likely fell outside the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction.

However, the motion judge granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal, finding that the delay was explained by the moving party's difficulties navigating the rules and that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of $353,752.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude his 50% interest in a corporation from his net family property as a gift and inheritance from his late father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the husband failed to meet his evidentiary burden under section 4(3) of the Family Law Act to prove the shares were actually paid for by his father and thus capable of being gifted.

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms offences after taking possession of a loaded gun from an intoxicated individual to prevent danger to the public.

He kept the gun in a safe for two and a half months while attempting to contact a lawyer, during which time police seized it.

The sentencing judge imposed a seven-month conditional sentence, declining to grant a discharge due to the appellant's criminal record, existing weapons prohibitions, and lack of diligence in divesting the weapon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors or the calculation of pre-sentence credit.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He argued that his counsel failed to properly advise him on his right to a jury trial, his right not to testify, and his right to appear in person rather than virtually.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and found that while the failure to advise on the jury election was not established, trial counsel failed to provide competent advice regarding the appellant's right to testify and his right to appear in person.

These failures deprived the appellant of the ability to make fundamental decisions about his defence, undermining trial fairness and resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial by judge and jury was ordered.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant law firm appealed a motion judge's decision reducing its contingency fee from approximately $4.1 million to $3.25 million following a $14 million medical malpractice settlement.

The motion judge found the 2018 contingency fee agreement was neither fair nor reasonable under the Solicitors Act, noting the client's vulnerability and the agreement's non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement was not fair at the time it was entered into, given the potential for fees to exceed the client's recovery and the failure to adequately explain the need for court approval.