Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay the respondents' counterclaim on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and an arbitration clause.

The motion judge found two presumptive connecting factors establishing Ontario's jurisdiction: the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation was committed in Ontario, and the contract was made in Ontario.

The motion judge also determined that the arbitration clause in a draft agreement was never agreed upon by the parties and therefore did not oust Ontario's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the factual findings or legal conclusions.

Appeal of a motion judge's decision dismissing a father's motion to change a custody order.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' child, alleging a material change in circumstances based on the failure to implement a parenting coordinator as ordered by the trial judge.

The motion judge found no material change in circumstances and, in the alternative, would not have granted sole custody due to risk of parental alienation.

The appellate court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the ongoing conflict between the parties and the failure to appoint a parenting coordinator were anticipated by the trial judge and did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court noted that a parenting coordinator was subsequently appointed and the plan had not failed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day imposed for defrauding three victims.

Duty counsel raised two main grounds: that the trial judge failed to give effect to evidence of remorse, and that the trial judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's position without affording defence counsel an opportunity to make further submissions.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge should have provided the defence an opportunity to address the proposed sentence, the imposed sentence was fit and perhaps even lenient given the serious nature of the frauds, the consequences to the victims, the appellant's guilty plea only after victims testified at the preliminary inquiry, and the appellant's prior probation for previous frauds.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 48 months' imprisonment.

Following a search warrant execution, police found five 100 microgram fentanyl patches and other drugs.

The appellant pleaded guilty to simple possession but the Crown rejected this plea.

He was convicted after trial of possession for the purpose of trafficking based primarily on expert police opinion regarding the quantity.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge improperly abdicated his role by deferring entirely to the expert's opinion on the ultimate issue.

The conviction was set aside and substituted with a conviction for simple possession.

The sentence was reduced to one day of imprisonment in addition to time already served, as the appellant had already served over three years.

The appellant contractor scratched approximately 180 windows while performing cleaning services at a newly constructed commercial building and reimbursed the building owner about $134,000 for the damage.

It sought indemnification under its commercial general liability policy, but the insurer denied coverage relying on “your work” exclusions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the occurrence causing the property damage was the scratching of the windows during the cleaning operation and that the damage arose out of the insured’s work.

Because the property damage fell squarely within the policy’s exclusions, coverage was properly denied and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed both his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence of 18 months imprisonment plus two years probation.

The conviction arose from an incident in which the appellant's motor vehicle struck and severely injured a pedestrian in a parking lot outside a pub, following an altercation with another patron.

The appellant argued the collision was inadvertent, while the Crown alleged it was intentional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the trial judge's factual findings and credibility determinations were reasonable and entitled to deference, and the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder and committing an indignity to a human body, applied for the appointment of publicly-funded appellate counsel under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the applicant lacked means to retain private counsel.

The court found the applicant had arguable grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's pre-trial rulings on the admissibility of evidence regarding the applicant's cannibalistic ideation, including statements to a psychiatric nurse and rap lyrics.

The court determined the applicant could not effectively argue the complex appeal without counsel assistance.

The appointment was granted on a limited basis, restricted to addressing the effects of the pre-trial rulings on trial fairness, excluding issues of post-offence conduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant was arrested on a charge of importing cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and was detained in custody.

Following conviction by jury, the appellant filed an application for judicial interim release under section 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, alleging a change in circumstances.

The trial judge dismissed the application on the tertiary ground.

The appellant then brought an application in the nature of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, seeking declarations regarding the court's jurisdiction to review bail and challenging the absence of a review mechanism as violating her Charter rights.

The Superior Court judge dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Parliament deliberately chose not to provide a review mechanism for trial judge orders under section 523(2)(a), and that habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy in these circumstances.

This is an appeal from a damages award in a defamation action.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's assessment of both compensatory and punitive damages awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly applied legal principles in quantifying damages.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that the award was out of line with other defamation cases involving political figures, noting that the trial judge found this was a personal matter, not a political case.

The appellants' conduct—repeating false statements with knowledge of their falsity and intent to continue—warranted substantial punitive damages for deterrence purposes.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing their action regarding a property sale.

The appellants challenged the sale on multiple grounds, including that procedures in a manual were not followed, that the motion judge was biased, that no auction occurred, and that the sale was improvident.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judgment, holding that the manual procedures did not have the force of law, the bias argument lacked merit, the motion judge properly accepted evidence that the auction occurred, and the appellants had adequate notice and failed to provide credible evidence of impropriety.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment determining ownership of disputed shares in a family company, Mic Mac Realty (Ottawa) Ltd. The trial judge found that the appellant failed to establish that his father had gifted the shares to him inter vivos or that the gift was completed by the executors.

Accordingly, the shares fell into the residue of the estate and belonged to the respondent as residuary beneficiary.

The trial judge also found the respondent's claim was not statute barred and held that the respondent held the shares in constructive trust for the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim against their insurer.

The trial judge found that the insurer had fully met its contractual obligations to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of fact, noting that while the appellants framed the issue as one of fairness and family wellbeing, the case was fundamentally about the nature of the insurer's obligations under the insurance contract and whether those obligations were met.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.

On remand from the Supreme Court of Canada following the Ledcor decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reconsidered its earlier dismissal of a class action appeal.

The appellant challenged Bell Mobility's seizure of prepaid credits, arguing that Bell's contractual terms and subsequent communications created an obligation to wait until after expiry before seizing funds.

The court affirmed its previous decision, holding that the expiry date was determined at the time of top-up purchase and reflected in the PIN receipts and phone cards, not in subsequent reminder messages or account page displays.

The court found that the appellant's real complaint concerned misrepresentation or promissory estoppel, neither of which were amenable to class proceeding resolution.

A partner in a national accounting firm was called into a meeting and told to retire after 22 years of partnership.

The firm later invoked a partnership agreement provision allowing the policy board to request a partner's resignation if it unanimously determined it was in the partnership's best interest.

The partner sued for breach of the partnership agreement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that the firm breached the agreement because the policy board did not make an independent determination based on evidence, and the decision was predetermined by the CEO.

The court awarded expectation damages for lost profits and retirement benefits, plus aggravated damages for reputational harm.

The firm appealed, but the appeal was dismissed.

Hydro One appealed an application judge's decision declining to grant a general declaration that the Ontario Provincial Police must produce accident reports containing driver and owner information to parties who suffer property loss in motor vehicle accidents.

Hydro One argued that while section 200(1) of the Highway Traffic Act requires drivers to provide such information on request, this provision is unavailable when only property loss occurs and no representative is present at the scene.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that although it may have had jurisdiction, it was not appropriate to take jurisdiction due to the absence of an active lis, lack of necessary factual record, and absence of interested parties including the Privacy Commissioner and Attorney General.

The appellants, Elizabeth Gayle and Fedrick Gayle, appealed their convictions for first degree murder in the death of Tiffany Gayle, a 15-year-old who was beaten to death in their home.

The appellants challenged various evidentiary rulings and jury instructions made at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's admission of evidence regarding prior discreditable conduct, the baseball bat, or the jury instructions regarding after-the-fact conduct and the modes of participation in the homicide.

A tenant obtained summary judgment against a landlord for recovery of losses arising from a fire at leased premises under a commercial lease.

The landlord appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in interpreting the lease by failing to apply binding appellate authority regarding contractual allocation of risk, failing to assign meaning to all contested lease terms, and ruling that the tenant's breach of its insurance covenant did not bar its subrogated claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Ledcor Construction.

On remand, the Court of Appeal affirmed its original decision, holding that the correctness standard of review applied to extricable questions of law within the motion judge's interpretation of the negotiated lease.

The appellant appealed his conviction on several drug trafficking charges arising from Project Dolphin, a joint forces investigation into drug trafficking in Thunder Bay.

The central issue concerned the admissibility of evidence extracted from the appellant's Blackberry device, which was seized incident to an arrest that was later found to be arbitrary.

The trial judge found Charter breaches but admitted the evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework for admissibility of constitutionally-tainted evidence.

The court also upheld the admission of hearsay evidence from a deceased co-conspirator and evidence from a co-conspirator's guilty plea under the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal in a civil matter.

The respondents (Jarbeaus) were successful on the cross-appeal while the appellant (McLean) was unsuccessful on the appeal.

The court awarded costs to the Jarbeaus in the amount of $75,000, allocated as $18,000 to the cross-appeal and $57,000 to the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The court declined to fix prejudgment interest or vary the trial costs award of $231,000.

A homebuilder appealed the dismissal of its action against its Commercial General Liability insurer for a declaration of duty to defend and indemnify in relation to a claim by homeowners.

The homeowners had purchased a lot and home where the property grading exceeded municipal standards.

The builder failed to include a required warning in the purchase agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no coverage under the CGL policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the claims were either based on intentional conduct or were clearly excluded under the policy's exclusion clauses, particularly those relating to property damage arising from defects in the builder's work and failure to provide warnings.