Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the respondent airline for a refund of a cancelled flight.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the two-year limitation period had expired under both the Montreal Convention and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court noted that the appellant's efforts to obtain a refund directly from the airline did not extend the limitation period.

Following a successful appeal of a procedural ruling regarding a contempt motion, the parties neglected to address the costs of the proceeding before the motion judge.

The appellant requested that the Court of Appeal determine those costs, seeking $20,000.

The respondent argued the matter should be remitted to the motion judge or that no costs should be awarded.

The Court of Appeal declined to remit the issue to avoid further delay and expense, and awarded the appellant costs of the motion below fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The respondents were charged with tax offences.

During the trial, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code.

The respondents subsequently sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter for alleged prosecutorial negligence and Charter breaches.

The Summary Conviction Court judge held he retained jurisdiction to hear the costs application, which was upheld on certiorari by the Superior Court.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that once the Crown exercises its discretion to stay proceedings, the trial judge becomes functus and lacks jurisdiction to entertain a Charter costs application.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that their insurers had no duty to defend them in an underlying action regarding defective septic systems.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by applying the 'Your Work' exclusion after correctly identifying that the underlying pleadings raised the mere possibility of consequential damages.

Because consequential damages are not excluded by the 'Your Work' exclusion, the mere possibility of such claims triggered the insurers' duty to defend.

The appeal was allowed and a declaration compelling the insurers to provide a defence was granted.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent over $2.2 million for unpaid commercial leases of forestry equipment.

The appellants argued the respondent was not the proper assignee, disputed the amount owing, and claimed equipment malfunctions excused payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the respondent was the assignee, the debt calculation was correct, and broad exclusion clauses in the leases precluded the equipment malfunction defence.

The court also quashed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a stay of execution for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant was convicted of historic sexual offences committed both as an adult and as a young offender.

The trial judge conducted a single trial for both the adult and youth indictments and admitted evidence across the indictments as similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act precludes the joint trial of adult and youth indictments.

The Court also held that the trial judge erred in his similar fact evidence ruling by failing to account for the 30-year gap and the appellant's age difference, and erred in admitting a videotaped statement without affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on her demeanour.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and break and enter, arguing the trial judge erred in finding his video statement to police was voluntary.

He alleged an officer induced the statement by suggesting he would be released after they talked.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that no such inducement was made and that the statement was voluntary, noting the trial judge was entitled to make findings based on the evidence and context despite the lack of police notes for a brief interaction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order staying their action against an Alberta hotel corporation for lack of a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that none of the presumptive connecting factors were met.

The court also rejected the appellants' argument that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the forum of necessity doctrine due to the expiry of the Alberta limitation period, noting the appellants made a tactical decision not to sue in Alberta.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured after striking a concrete curbstone on Steeles Avenue, the border between Toronto and Markham.

The plaintiff sued both municipalities, and Toronto cross-claimed against Markham.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against Markham, finding Toronto had exclusive jurisdiction over the boulevard where the curbstone originated, and ordered Toronto to pay Markham's costs via a Sanderson order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, confirming Toronto's exclusive jurisdiction and finding Markham owed no duty of care to Toronto.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, finding a Sanderson order premature since Toronto's liability to the plaintiff had not yet been determined at trial.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic cocaine and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and that the sentencing judge failed to give full credit for time spent in immigration detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the established range and the sentencing judge properly exercised his discretion in allocating credit for the immigration detention, which was largely triggered by unrelated factors.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a historical sexual assault that occurred in 1991.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge fairly assessed the credibility of the witnesses using the W.(D.) framework and that there was a clear evidentiary basis for the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing his arrest was unlawful, evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding there were objective grounds for the arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including a confidential informant tip and police surveillance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis and found no error in the assessment of evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the four-year term was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed a jury award of zero damages and a trial judge's ruling that her claim for non-pecuniary loss did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the jury verdict was perverse and the trial judge erred in his threshold analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the appellant's post-accident difficulties were inevitable due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's threshold ruling.

The respondent moved for an order under Rule 61.06 for security for costs of the appellant's family law appeal.

The motion judge reviewed the grounds of appeal, which primarily challenged the trial judge's findings of fact regarding spousal support, imputed income, and business valuation.

Finding no arguable error of law and concluding the appeal was likely frivolous and vexatious, the motion judge also determined the appellant had insufficient liquid assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

The motion was granted, and the appellant was ordered to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The appellant employer and respondent employee settled two actions for $1,500,000.

The minutes of settlement required a $250,000 payment to the respondent's solicitors in trust 'with no deductions'.

The appellant, on accounting advice, withheld and remitted taxes to the CRA on the full settlement amount, applying the withholding for the trust payment against another payment made directly to the respondent.

The application judge found the appellant breached the minutes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the minutes ambiguous and concluding the appellant acted reasonably.

Furthermore, the respondent suffered no loss as the remitted funds stood to his credit with the CRA.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and uttering death threats against his former spouse.

At trial, the complainant denied sending a Facebook message that indicated the sexual activity was consensual, and the trial judge barred further cross-examination on the message.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence, including forensic analysis proving the complainant sent the message, which she subsequently admitted.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence met the prerequisites for admissibility.

The Court of Appeal admitted the evidence, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, which was stayed at the joint request of counsel.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with permission to live in the community restricted to supervised accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to consider a conditional discharge and by requiring supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant was not yet ready for a conditional discharge, as recent attempts at community living had failed.

The Court also found the Board's requirement for supervised accommodation was reasonable and supported by expert opinion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for driving over the legal limit, arguing that his statements to police at the accident scene were statutorily compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and violated his section 7 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the smell of alcohol alone justified the approved screening device demand and the police had established the driver's identity without relying on the appellant's statements.

The proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of significance to the administration of justice beyond the case.

The appellants appealed a judgment requiring them to pay $30,000 to the respondents, representing the balance owing under Minutes of Settlement.

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

The court further held that the appellants could not rely on their own conduct to support a claim that the contract was frustrated.

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping and robbery, arguing that the trial judge's questions to a defence witness created an apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly followed the established protocol by waiting until the conclusion of the witness's testimony to ask clarifying questions on a narrow issue and allowing further re-examination.