Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable as an occupier of a municipal sidewalk under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The respondent slipped and fell on ice at the entrance to the appellant's patio, which opened onto the sidewalk.

The trial judge found the appellant was an occupier of the sidewalk portion at the patio threshold based on its exclusive use of the patio, maintenance of the entrance area, and direction of customer traffic.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding on a narrower basis, confirming that the appellant was an occupier of only the threshold portion where the fall occurred, not the entire sidewalk area.

The court rejected arguments that the finding undermined the principle that mere snow and ice clearing does not create occupier status, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

In a 32-year marriage, the trial judge ordered equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The appellant challenged both awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the equalization determination, finding the trial judge's use of similar multiples for two companies in the same business was reasonable and well-reasoned.

However, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle in determining spousal support by failing to consider the significant effect of the equalization payment on the respondent's compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement and by failing to impute investment income to the respondent based on the equalization payment.

The spousal support was varied from $28,978 per month to $21,000 per month based on an imputed income of $675,000 rather than the full $1,000,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent approximately $311,000 on a mortgage debt and dismissing the appellant's counter-claim for a refund of payments made.

The appellant had participated in a fraudulent transaction by allowing himself to be put forward as the mortgagor when the true owner could not qualify for a mortgage.

The appellant received $5,000 for his participation and made payments on the mortgage for seven years before it went into default.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motions judge's application of the rules and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding the unenforceability of the mortgage.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention on a General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with the ability to live in community accommodation approved by the person in charge of CAMH.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that an absolute discharge was not appropriate given clear evidence that the appellant would stop taking medication, decompensate quickly, and engage in threatening and aggressive behaviour.

The court also rejected the argument that a conditional discharge was the least restrictive appropriate order, finding that the detention order with community living possibilities was reasonable given the appellant's homelessness and ongoing risk of harm.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision granting a sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA) to send seized evidence to Belgium.

The appellants sought to include terms and conditions in the sending order to restrict disclosure of commercially sensitive information about cyclotron design and manufacture to a state-owned competitor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sending judge did not err in refusing to impose such restrictions.

The court found that the Treaty between Canada and Belgium, combined with MLACMA, adequately protects against improper use and disclosure through the Minister's supervisory role and the Treaty's restrictions on use and disclosure.

The appellant was charged with speeding under the Highway Traffic Act and was assisted by his brother-in-law, an unlicensed non-lawyer, in proceedings before a justice of the peace.

A stay of proceedings was granted due to the prosecutor's failure to provide proper disclosure in violation of Charter rights.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice, the appeal judge refused to permit the brother-in-law to continue representing the appellant based on general concerns about non-licensed persons representing defendants in provincial offence matters.

The appeal judge set aside the stay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the appeal judge erred by failing to apply the proper legal test for disqualifying a representative and by relying on a blanket concern rather than examining the particular circumstances and competence of the representative.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claims for equalization of net family property and a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home.

The parties had separated in 2006, settled all matters through a Minutes of Settlement in 2007, and reconciled at the end of May 2007.

Upon reconciliation, the wife received a disability payment which was deposited into the husband's account and used to pay household bills and mortgage.

The husband later transferred the home to his mother.

The trial judge upheld the validity of the Minutes of Settlement and dismissed the wife's claims.

The appellate court affirmed, finding that the Minutes of Settlement clearly expressed the parties' intention to exclude future property from equalization upon reconciliation, and that the wife failed to establish a resulting trust claim.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to set aside a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The lower court had issued five separate judgments in five different actions that were heard together but not consolidated.

The notice of appeal did not reflect the style of any of the five judgments, and no appeal from any individual judgment fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to consolidate matters resulting in five separate judgments and transferred the matter to the Divisional Court, which possessed the appropriate monetary jurisdiction.

A police officer was convicted of 46 offences related to fraud, making false documents, breach of trust, and obstruction of justice arising from nine fraudulent motor vehicle accident reports prepared in 2010 that resulted in insurers paying over $1,000,000 in claims.

The appellant conceded the actus reus but contested whether he was a knowing participant in the fraud scheme.

The trial judge found he was and convicted him on all but six counts, imposing a five-year sentence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of impermissible speculation, the application of the Kienapple principle, and the fitness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal.

The appellant appealed from orders of the Superior Court striking her claims against Crown Defendants and dismissing them without leave to amend, and striking her claims against Ms. Santone with leave to amend to pursue only a breach of privacy claim.

The appellant's pleading alleged damages of $8.4 million arising from treatment by various state officials spanning from 1970 to 2011, including claims for conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, breach of trust, intentional infliction of mental distress, and various statutory violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts to support the allegations, and that the Crown Defendants were protected by statutory and common law immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's allegation of judicial bias.

The appellant appealed a finding of incapacity to consent to anti-psychotic medication made by a physician and confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on criminal charges and was detained at a psychiatric facility.

Subsequently, her appeal of the NCR verdict was allowed and a new trial was ordered, but she remained detained under the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the incapacity finding was not moot despite the successful appeal of the NCR verdict, as the appellant remained lawfully detained at the time the incapacity determination was made.

The Court upheld the Board's finding that although the appellant could understand relevant information about treatment, she could not apply it to her own circumstances due to her delusional disorder.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The respondents were successful on both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $40,000, inclusive of all disbursements and HST.

The judgment was also varied on consent of the parties to correct two monetary amounts in paragraphs 5 and 7.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial.

The sole issue was whether the complainant consented to the sexual touching, as the appellant admitted to the touching itself.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the jury charge was unfair and unbalanced, as the trial judge spent significantly more time summarizing the Crown's theory than the defence's theory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the charge appeared facially imbalanced, when considered holistically with counsel's closing submissions, the jury was adequately instructed on the factual issues, applicable law, and positions of both parties.

The court emphasized that a functional approach to reviewing jury charges requires consideration of the entire trial context, not the charge in isolation.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had concluded that the accident was a straightforward rear-end collision and that the appellant, as the rear-ending party, failed to discharge his onus of proving the collision did not arise from his negligence.

The appellant challenged the motion judge's findings on three grounds: improper judicial notice of scientific and technical matters, misapprehension of evidence, and erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment.

The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against a 10-year-old male complainant following a judge-alone trial.

The trial judge convicted the appellant of sexual misconduct during the period December 2012 to August 2013 and on October 21, 2013, but acquitted on charges relating to August 6, 2013.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's reasoning, arguing she failed to explain how she could accept the complainant's evidence on some counts while rejecting it on others, that she improperly focused on credibility rather than reliability, and that she failed to consider the appellant's demeanour when confronted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and went beyond reliance on demeanour alone.

The appellant appealed a long-term offender (LTO) designation imposed following his conviction for aggravated assault, weapons dangerous, and breach of probation.

The appellant had stabbed a victim six times on a subway platform.

The trial judge sentenced him to four years and one day imprisonment with a concurrent sentence for breach of probation, and imposed an LTO designation with a seven-year supervision order.

The appellant raised three issues: insufficient reasons regarding the interpretation of "substantial risk that the offender will reoffend" misapplication of the statutory test, and failure to consider discretion not to make an LTO designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the LTO designation.

An appeal from a trial judgment concerning fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit.

The respondents invested over $1 million in a company controlled by the appellant Gardiner, who misrepresented that the company owned and controlled valuable intellectual property (patents, trademarks) when in fact Gardiner personally maintained control.

The trial judge found Gardiner liable for deceit and awarded damages of $2.2 million.

On appeal, the court upheld the finding of deceit against Gardiner but reversed the finding against Armstrong (his wife), reduced the damages award to $1.25 million plus prejudgment interest, and remitted the matter for an accounting of profits earned during the respondents' operation of the business.

The respondent Crown brought a motion to quash an appeal from a Superior Court order requiring the appellant to produce Youth Records under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The motion judge had ordered the appellant to produce specified Youth Records or face a stay of his proposed class action proceeding.

The appellant challenged the order as final rather than interlocutory, arguing the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory in nature—a production order with a sanction for non-compliance—and therefore any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the Crown.

An appeal under the Child and Family Services Act was dismissed as moot.

The appellant acknowledged that the appeal was not about the return of the child and involved a question of law considered in the absence of a concrete dispute between the parties.

The Court of Appeal found no overriding and palpable error in the lower court's discretionary decision to refuse to entertain the appeal on mootness grounds.

The lower court properly applied the factors set out in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General).

Five appellants convicted of drug-related offences appealed their convictions, challenging the application judge's admission of evidence obtained pursuant to wiretap authorizations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants argued that the application judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by failing to adequately recognize the impact of prior police misconduct and by not giving appropriate effect to findings of serious carelessness in the affidavits.

Ba Tuan Tran also appealed his sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and the sentence appeal, finding the application judge's analysis fair, balanced, and correct.