Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed a summary judgment declaring that a May 2014 agreement between the parties was a binding contract and ordering its rectification to remove a clause requiring a future formal agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound and that the formal agreement clause was included by mutual mistake.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for the forcible seizure of a child and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a secure forensic unit.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a transfer to a different facility to access a larger gay community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to the public was reasonable and supported by expert evidence indicating he remained untreated and unstable.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to transfer the appellant, noting the request was premature and lacked therapeutic justification.

The deceased, a non-swimmer, drowned in Lake Simcoe while visiting the respondents' cottage.

The appellants brought an action in negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the respondents failed to warn the deceased of the lake's dangers and falsely represented that the lake was safe and shallow.

The motion judge dismissed the action on summary judgment, finding no special relationship or duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the respondents did not control the lake, did not create a risky situation, and owed no duty to warn the deceased of obvious dangers removed from their property.

The moving party, United Steelworkers Union Local 2251, sought a stay of a CCAA judge's order establishing a summary process with condensed timelines for the resolution of grievance-related claims, pending its motion for leave to appeal.

The union argued the process altered the collective agreement contrary to s. 33 of the CCAA and that it would suffer irreparable harm due to the workload and deadlines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious question to be determined as leave to appeal was unlikely to be granted, no irreparable harm as avenues for assistance existed, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants' restructuring efforts.

The Crown appealed a nearly $1 million costs award made against it after its unsuccessful application to forfeit two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The application judge found the Crown's conduct, including pursuing a meritless application against innocent third parties and taking an intransigent attitude, amounted to a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ontario Court of Justice has an implied power to award costs in CDSA forfeiture applications, the correct standard was applied, and the quantum of costs was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The amicus curiae argued the appeal judge improperly considered the appellant's subsequent involuntary patient status, the Board's decision was unreasonable, and the appellant was denied a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appeal judge only used the subsequent status as background, there was ample evidence of the appellant's inability to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decisions due to delusions, and any curtailment of cross-examination was on tangential matters.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving a young person, arguing the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, misapprehended evidence, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his pubic hair colour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) test.

While the trial judge misapprehended some evidence, it did not play an essential part in the reasoning process.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her appeal from a Crown wardship order regarding three of her children.

She argued the children should be placed with their maternal grandmother, that she received inadequate representation at trial, and that the respondent society failed to investigate the grandmother as a placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the inadequate representation claim and agreeing with the trial judge's concerns about the grandmother's suitability given her own child protection history.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no air of reality to his defence of duress.

The appellant claimed he was forced to transport drugs to pay off a $40,000 debt to an unsavoury character who threatened him and his family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant had safe avenues of escape, such as going to the police or liquidating his RRSPs, and therefore failed to establish an air of reality to the defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for several offences against his wife, including assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and dangerous driving.

The primary issue was the trial judge's admission of the complainant's videotaped police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, as she claimed memory loss at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the admission of the statement and the trial judge's credibility findings.

However, the Court found the conviction for dangerous driving unreasonable due to insufficient evidence regarding the manner of driving, quashing that conviction and entering an acquittal.

The remaining convictions were upheld.

Following an appeal, the parties made submissions on costs.

On agreement, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $12,500 plus HST, and the interveners to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $7,000 plus HST.

The court declined the appellant's request that the interveners pay his costs of the appeal, noting that claim should be made in pending proceedings between them.

The appellants appealed from a motion judge's dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's claims as statute-barred.

The motion judge had found that the respondent lacked standing to bring a fraudulent conveyance claim prior to the appointment of a receiver, and that the appellants had concealed facts necessary to support the claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's findings on discoverability and concealment were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appellant, Pro-Demnity Insurance Company, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) seeking a determination that s. 2(5) of the Architects Act does not prevent it from expanding its insurance business.

The application judge held he had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding it more appropriate for the Superintendent of Financial Services to determine the question in the context of the appellant's pending licence amendment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's discretionary decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple offences, including attempted murder and forcible confinement, arising from the abduction of the complainant at gunpoint.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the potential contamination of the complainant's identification evidence from a YouTube video and by misapprehending evidence regarding the attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was alive to the potential contamination issue and properly relied on the extensive one-on-one time the complainant spent with the appellant.

The Court also held that the trial judge reasonably concluded, based on an objective assessment of the evidence, that the appellant pointed an operable firearm at the complainant's head and pulled the trigger with the expectation of shooting her.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he remain under a conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating physician's opinion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the public if he discontinued his medication.

The Board had appropriately recognized the appellant's progress by reducing his conditions, and left open the possibility of an absolute discharge at the next annual hearing.

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine and his 24-month conditional sentence.

He argued the trial judge reversed the burden of proof, relied on unraised issues, and rendered irreconcilable verdicts by acquitting him of possessing proceeds of crime while convicting him of trafficking.

He also argued his sentence was disproportionate compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or verdicts, and concluding the conditional sentence was fit given the nature of the offence.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action for catastrophic injury Statutory Accident Benefits as statute-barred under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act.

The motion judge had distinguished the Divisional Court's decision in Do v. Guarantee Insurance Co., finding that the insurer's denial of catastrophic status included language denying increased benefits, thereby triggering the two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the insurer's language merely indicated a lack of status to claim increased benefits and did not constitute a denial of specific benefits.

The motion judge's order was set aside.

The appellant appealed his effective sentence of 16 months following guilty pleas to driving offences and possession of stolen property.

The trial judge had imposed a 9-month sentence (in addition to 7 months of pretrial custody) to allow the appellant to attend the Ontario Correctional Institute, which required a 9-month minimum.

After the appellant was rejected from the program, he appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the 5 months originally requested by the Crown, noting the appellant's genuine remorse.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and her six-month custodial sentence.

The appellant argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the traffic stop and search, and that the evidence should be excluded under s 24(2) of the Charter due to a s 10(b) breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the stop was justified under the Highway Traffic Act and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the smell of marijuana and other observations.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in principle and noting the significant quantity of marijuana and the appellant's perjured testimony.