Court of Appeal

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's decision that allowed an Ontario supervisory judge to sit outside the province with judges from British Columbia and Quebec to hear motions regarding a national class action settlement, without requiring a video link to an Ontario courtroom.

The Court of Appeal held that while superior courts have the inherent jurisdiction to conduct hearings outside their home province, the open court principle under section 135 of the Courts of Justice Act requires a video link to a reasonably accessible Ontario courtroom.

The appeal was allowed to amend the order to require a video link.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent landlord for negligence after a fire damaged its leased premises.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no evidence of the landlord's negligence and holding that expert evidence was required to prove causation.

On appeal, the appellant argued that common sense inferences and the landlord's spoliation of evidence (destroying a space heater) should suffice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that expert evidence was necessary given the technical nature of the building's electrical system, and noting that an adverse inference from spoliation cannot serve as positive proof of negligence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action for long-term disability benefits.

The motion judge had dismissed the action on the basis of a contractual one-year limitation period, failure to meet qualifying conditions, and the statutory two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in relying on the contractual limitation period without making necessary findings under section 22 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal because the appellant failed to meet the policy's qualifying conditions and her action was barred by the statutory two-year limitation period.

The appellant, a former probationary employee of the National Research Council, brought a defamation action against his former employer and colleagues regarding statements made in a 'Release on Probation' document.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding it was barred by the grievance scheme under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, lacked evidence of defamation, and was protected by qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his claim and awarding $48,000 in costs to the respondent.

The dismissal resulted from the appellant's persistent and deliberate failure to comply with court orders regarding disclosure and production obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere, noting the appellant's repeated flouting of court orders and failure to comply with a 'last chance' order.

The court rejected the suggestion that the self-represented appellant was treated unfairly, noting he had threatened opposing counsel with death.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their personal injury claim against the Toronto Transit Commission after a slip and fall at a transit station.

The motion judge found no objective evidence of a hazard on the stairs and concluded the TTC met its statutory duty of care as an occupier.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment test or his reliance on the uncontradicted evidence regarding the condition of the stairs and the TTC's maintenance practices.

The appellant franchisor appealed a declaration that a clause in its franchise agreements requiring a general release as a condition of assignment was void and unenforceable under s. 11 of the Arthur Wishart Act.

The Court of Appeal held that while the clause was not void ab initio, it was unenforceable because it required a release of statutory claims.

The Court declined to apply notional severance to read down the clause to apply only to non-statutory claims, finding that doing so would subvert the protective purpose of the Act and invite franchisors to draft overly broad releases.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of her appeal and sought a fourth adjournment due to alleged dental pain.

The court refused the adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delaying the litigation, the lack of medical evidence regarding her inability to proceed, and the prejudice to the respondent who had been carrying the costs of caring for their elderly mother.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations against the respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The motion judge had found the pleadings lacked sufficient material facts to establish that the respondents acted in concert with the author of the defamatory emails.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that when the amended statement of claim was read generously alongside the particulars and the incorporated emails, sufficient material facts were pleaded to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The order dismissing the action was set aside, and the appellants were granted leave to amend their pleadings.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim for professional negligence and medical malpractice against several dental surgeons.

The motion judge found the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the appellant commenced the action nearly five years after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's own pleadings and correspondence contradicted her argument that she did not discover her claim in 2006, and there was no basis to grant leave to amend a statute-barred claim.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continues to pose a significant risk due to her lack of insight into her mental illness, history of non-compliance with medication, and the violent nature of the index offence.

The court concluded the detention order was the least restrictive measure to manage the risk.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred by failing to explicitly consider and reject a conditional discharge, despite a joint submission for a detention order with expanded privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had evidence that a conditional discharge could risk decompensation and suicidal or homicidal reactions due to stress related to the appellant's transgender status.

The Court concluded the Board fully discharged its obligation to impose the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appellant was convicted of personation and obstructing a peace officer after fleeing a traffic stop where he presented another person's expired driver's licence.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge failed to properly scrutinize the police officer's eyewitness identification and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

He also appealed his 12-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's credibility and reliability assessments were sound, and the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record and prior related convictions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Because the underlying finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) had already been set aside on a separate appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed this appeal from the ORB decision for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in finding he had knowledge of the nature of the images in a deleted folder on his computer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was a logical inference that the appellant knew the criminal nature of the files since he specifically sought them out to delete them before a police visit.

The court also rejected the argument that the conviction for possession was inconsistent with his acquittal for accessing child pornography, as the two verdicts were based on different evidence.

The applicant was found guilty of trafficking marijuana and sought a stay of his upcoming sentencing from the Court of Appeal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The applicant requested that sentencing be stayed pending his conviction appeal, or alternatively, that he be sentenced by a different judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no basis to intervene prior to sentencing and holding that the proper course was for the applicant to raise the bias allegation with the trial judge.

The respondents moved to quash the appellant's appeal from an order staying his action until he paid outstanding costs awards.

The Court of Appeal held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally determine any substantive matter in the litigation and left it open for the appellant to pursue the action upon paying the costs.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed as it must be brought before the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent bank amounts owing on a mortgage and line of credit, leave to issue a writ of possession, and dismissing their counterclaim.

The appellants admitted indebtedness but argued they had an arrangement with the respondent's employees to make mortgage payments using funds from a third-party loan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the appellants led no evidence to contradict the respondent's evidence of default, including property tax arrears.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike her claim for negligent investigation on the basis that it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued that the negligent investigation claim was interconnected with her breach of privacy claim, which the motion judge had allowed to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two claims protect different legal interests and are distinct.

The motion judge's costs award was also upheld.