Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of male/female strength disparities, misapprehended evidence, and shifted the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) principles to assess credibility.

The Court noted that text messages and emails between the parties strongly corroborated the complainant's version of events and were tantamount to an acknowledgement of guilt.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court order dismissing his appeal from an Ontario Court order making his child a Crown ward.

The child had been apprehended after the father allowed the mother, who posed a serious risk, to have contact with the child, breaching a supervision order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to balance the risk of harm to the child from exposure to the mother against the risk of disruption to the child's positive relationship with his father if a Crown wardship order were made.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after fatally stabbing a man in his garage.

At trial, the appellant argued self-defence, claiming the deceased was a loan shark who had threatened him.

The trial judge instructed the jury that while there is no obligation to retreat from one's own property, the failure to retreat is a factor to consider in assessing self-defence.

The Court of Appeal held this instruction was an error, as a person is not required to retreat from their own home in the face of an attack.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for assault-related offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal regarding the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons, finding the trial judge gave a detailed explanation for his credibility findings.

However, based on fresh evidence and a Crown concession, the Court substituted a conviction for assault simpliciter on count six instead of assault causing bodily harm.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence of two years less a day—significantly higher than the Crown's 90-day proposal—without allowing counsel to make submissions.

The global sentence was reduced to 18 months.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that implied a term into a commercial agreement requiring the appellant to enter into a contract with QVC UK to provide the respondent's products for broadcast on the Shopping Channel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to imply the term because the agreement made no practical sense without it, and the entire agreement clause did not preclude this implication.

The court noted the same result could have been reached through standard contractual interpretation.

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his action based on a finding that an oral settlement had been reached prior to the commencement of the action.

The appellant argued that because the parties had not agreed on the form of release, no binding settlement was reached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that absent a contractual stipulation to the contrary, a settlement agreement implies a promise to furnish a release.

The youth appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons and erred in admitting a hearsay statement.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons were too brief to reveal the basis for resolving conflicting evidence.

Furthermore, the hearsay statement lacked reliability, as the declarant had a motive to fabricate and the evidence required cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered, subject to the Crown's discretion given the appellant had almost completed his probation.

The appellant appealed the sentences imposed for two charges, one of which was an indictable offence.

The Crown conceded that the sentencing was improperly conducted in the absence of the accused without the required inquiry, and that the sentences were excessive.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, varying the sentences to two months consecutive on each charge to account for pre-trial custody, and declined to impose a probation term.

The appellant, acting in person, brought a motion to remove the solicitors of record for the respondents on the appeal, alleging conflict of interest and misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the serious allegations.

The court emphasized the importance of a litigant's right to counsel of choice and noted that removing counsel would cause prejudice to the respondents, who relied on their counsel's ability to communicate in Farsi.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent tenant's property taxes should be calculated on a proportionate share basis.

The lease provided that if separate assessments were unavailable, the parties must use reasonable efforts to obtain sufficient official information to determine what the separate assessment would have been.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) valuation records constituted sufficient official information for this purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of nine years' imprisonment and his designation as a long-term offender following guilty pleas to aggravated assault and other offences arising from a domestic stabbing.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in designating the appellant a long-term offender because she failed to find that his pattern of aggressive behaviour was 'persistent' under the dangerous offender criteria, and failed to separately analyze whether there was a substantial risk to reoffend.

The long-term offender designation was set aside, but the nine-year sentence for the predicate offences was affirmed as fit.

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Licence Appeal Tribunal's revocation of her licence for professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not deferring to the Discipline Committee's penalty decision and that there was no evidence her conduct endangered the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal hearing was de novo under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, requiring no deference, and that the Tribunal's findings of deceitful conduct were well-supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion for partial summary judgment, which he had brought on the basis of issue estoppel relying on findings from a Federal Court security certificate proceeding.

During oral argument, the appellant conceded he was no longer appealing the correctness of the order dismissing the motion, but only sought to appeal the motion judge's conclusion that issue estoppel did not apply.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that an appeal lies from an order and not from the reasons of the court below.

The appellant appealed an order varying the respondent's child support obligations.

The respondent had suffered a catastrophic injury, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The motions judge retroactively recalculated child support arrears based on actual income rather than the previously imputed income.

The appellant argued the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to retroactively recalculate arrears under s. 37(2.1) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 37(2.1)(a) provides the court with broad discretion to vary an original order retroactively when a change in circumstances is established.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching on the sole ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He alleged his counsel incompetently refused to allow him to testify, failed to prepare him to testify, and failed to call a witness regarding an alleged prior false complaint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for his claims or demonstrate any prejudice resulting from his counsel's conduct.

Two sets of plaintiffs commenced competing class proceedings against the defendants.

The motion judge granted carriage to the respondents and stayed the appellant's action.

The appellant appealed the carriage order to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a carriage order is interlocutory, not final.

The stay of the unsuccessful plaintiff's action does not terminate their claim, as they may still opt out or participate in the certified class action.

Therefore, the appeal lies to the Divisional Court with leave.

The young person appealed convictions for possession of a dangerous weapon, assault with a weapon, and pointing a firearm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's reliance on a witness's testimony to support identification evidence.

However, the Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in law by finding that an imitation firearm could support a conviction for pointing a firearm.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, set aside the conviction for pointing a firearm, and ordered a new trial on that count.

The remaining convictions were upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit with the possibility of transfer to a General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant had absented himself from the hospital for four months before surrendering the day before the appeal hearing.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence of elopement and the resulting flight risk concerns were sufficient to sustain the Board's hybrid disposition, while urging an expedited fresh review by the Board.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for several firearms offences and mischief.

The trial judge had adjourned sentencing to allow the respondent to accumulate enough pre-sentence custody to serve his sentence in a provincial reformatory rather than a penitentiary, and imposed concurrent sentences totalling two years less a day.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the adjournment inappropriate, the characterization of the gun offences as 'minimal' erroneous, and the imposition of concurrent sentences for distinct offences incorrect.

The total sentence was increased to 4 years and 9 months.

The appellants were charged with trading in real estate as brokers without being registered.

The justice of the peace acquitted them, providing ambiguous reasons regarding whether they possessed the requisite mens rea or were acquitted based on perceived unfairness.

The summary conviction appeal judge reversed the acquittals and entered convictions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that both the justice of the peace and the appeal judge provided inadequate reasons that foreclosed meaningful appellate review on the mens rea component of the offences.