Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim that the respondent's actions caused a corporation to lose its business and deprived him of management fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the corporation was placed in liquidation by consent court order, which required its replacement as general partner.

The loss of business was occasioned by the consent liquidation, not by any actions of the respondent.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court decision that upheld a trial conviction.

The appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and erred in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding the case raised no legal issues of significance to the general administration of justice and that the trial judge had given extensive, well-reasoned findings.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of income tax evasion after claiming her depression prevented her from filing returns.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in admitting a doctor's letter as hearsay and relying on it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, agreeing with the appeal judge and further finding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on evidence he had previously ruled inadmissible to support the appellant's credibility.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice granting the Crown's application for certiorari, which quashed a preliminary inquiry judge's order committing the appellant to stand trial for second degree murder and instead ordered him to stand trial for first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by weighing evidence and choosing between competing inferences regarding planning and deliberation.

The Court found there was sufficient evidence, including a document showing a grudge and the circumstances of the knife attack, to support an inference of planning and deliberation.

The appellants, suppliers of building materials, sued the respondent under s 13(1) of the Construction Lien Act, claiming he was liable for breaches of trust by the general contractor of which he was an officer and director.

The trial judge found the respondent liable, but the Divisional Court reversed this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that there was no evidence the breaches of trust occurred after the respondent took control of the general contractor in May 2002, and the onus was on the appellants to prove this.

The appellant rented a truck to transport a machine, which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant sought compensation from the truck lessor's insurer.

The insurer denied coverage, and the motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the policy excluded coverage for property carried in the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the direct compensation for property damage provisions under s. 263 of the Insurance Act applied, treating the lessee as a third party.

The court further held that exclusions in the rental agreement and any misrepresentation of the cargo did not limit the appellant's right to recover under the statutory scheme.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to stay charges against two accused involved in a marijuana grow operation.

The trial judge stayed the charges against the first accused because a Mandarin interpreter was unavailable on the final day of trial, citing judicial independence and unreasonable delay.

The charges against the second accused were stayed based on a finding that police breached the knock-and-announce rule and section 7 of the Charter during the execution of a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle and in law on both stays.

The stays were set aside and a new trial was ordered for both accused.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action due to his failure to pay six outstanding costs orders totalling approximately $6,000.

At the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment pending the resolution of other alleged proceedings, which the court denied due to lack of justification.

The appellant then declined to make oral submissions.

The Court of Appeal reviewed his written materials, found no error in the motion judge's decision, and dismissed the appeal, noting the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of impecuniosity.

The moving party mother sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision confirming Crown wardship orders for her two children.

The children's aid society opposed the motion, arguing that the children had already been placed for adoption and that statutory provisions barred an extension.

The court declined to decide the jurisdictional issue but dismissed the motion on the merits, finding that the mother had no prospect of success on appeal because the proposed grounds involved factual determinations that had been fully canvassed by the lower courts.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision reversing a stay of proceedings.

The trial judge had stayed the proceedings for operating a public garage contrary to a municipal by-law, finding the prosecution was an abuse of process based on the by-law officer's evidence.

The appeal judge reversed the stay and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, finding the case raised significant questions of law regarding the laying of charges by enforcement officers that met the public interest requirement.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to make the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not granting the hospital discretion to permit him to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable and supported by evidence that community living was not a viable option due to the appellant's obsession with living with his daughters.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in civil contempt and sentencing him to 42 days in jail and a $40,000 fine for refusing to answer questions during an examination in aid of execution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in refusing an adjournment, that the appellant knew which answers were inadequate, and that continued disobedience of court orders justifies incremental penal sanctions.

The sentence was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's repeated and flagrant disregard for the court's authority.

The appellant was convicted of importing over 20 kilograms of marijuana after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

She appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of common practices in drug importation cases to reject her credibility.

She also appealed her 18-month custodial sentence, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge properly relied on his experience and common sense in assessing credibility, and that the custodial sentence was appropriate given the commercial quantity of drugs and the need for deterrence.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for firearms and contraband offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the vehicle search was reasonable and that he had knowledge of the contraband.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the reliability of the confidential informant's tip and the assessment of witness credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was deemed fit given the appellant's prior record for similar offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a threat to cause death, criminal harassment, and breach of probation.

He argued that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the defence theory, the independence of confirmatory evidence, the examples of confirmatory evidence provided, and the instruction on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal despite receiving notification from the court and materials from the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondents.

The appellant was convicted of firearms and drug trafficking offences after police found him in an apartment with drugs and a loaded handgun.

At trial, the judge refused to allow the defence to call a third-party witness who was expected to testify that the drugs and gun belonged to him, ruling there was an insufficient nexus between the witness and the offences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge misapplied the test for alternate suspect evidence.

Where the defence proposes to call direct evidence from another person taking responsibility for the crimes charged, that proposed evidence itself constitutes a sufficient nexus.

The appellant was discharged at a preliminary inquiry on several firearm offences due to insufficient evidence of constructive possession.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari and mandamus, and the application judge quashed the discharge and committed the appellant for trial.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in her consideration of the evidence as a whole, and that any error in assessing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence was not jurisdictional and therefore not reviewable on certiorari.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, counsel for the parties requested that the Court of Appeal address the costs of the original motion.

The Court ordered that the costs of the original motion be referred to the motion judge.