Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by excluding evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code that the complainant engaged in consensual sex with another man shortly after the alleged assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown's cross-examination and closing address presented a distorted narrative regarding the complainant's emotional state and loyalty to her boyfriend, making the excluded evidence highly probative to the defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

An employee of the appellant hospital defrauded his employer by causing it to issue cheques to a made-up entity for services never rendered.

The cheques were deposited by an accomplice at the respondent bank.

The hospital sued the bank for conversion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the made-up entity was a 'non-existing person' under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act, which allowed the bank to treat the cheques as payable to bearer and provided a complete defence to the conversion claim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the finding of murder during forcible confinement under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code was unreasonable.

The appellant contended that the act of killing was not discrete from the act of confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the appellant confined the victim by tying him up, beat him, and subsequently strangled him, taking advantage of the dominance gained through the confinement.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest and that his rights under ss. 10(a) and (b) of the Charter were violated.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the circumstances, including the fact that the appellant matched the description of a male who pointed a handgun, constituted reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The Charter arguments were not pressed and were found to have no merit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed an order for Crown wardship without access regarding her child.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that the mother failed to provide evidence showing a realistic possibility that contact would be meaningful, beneficial, and in the child's best interests.

Fresh evidence regarding another child was deemed of limited assistance due to differences in age and the mother's involvement.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming Crown wardship without access.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for assault with a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by characterizing the incident as an attack on a stranger, when it actually occurred during a drug transaction.

This misapprehension constituted an error in principle, requiring a fresh assessment of the sentence.

The Court varied the sentence to two years, in addition to four months of pre-trial custody, noting the seriousness of the assault and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claim against the respondent insurer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the limitation period expired in 2005.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that equitable doctrines, such as unjust enrichment, could override the express terms of the insurance contract, the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Insurance Act, particularly since the claim did not fall within the policy terms as it was not an accident.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a dangerous offender designation, arguing that the Crown must show evidence of untreatability to sustain the order.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission and dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly focused on whether there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the appellant's risk in the community.

The moving parties, officers and directors of the Gandi Group, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order in CCAA proceedings.

The motion judge had limited their indemnity claims to specific corporate entities, subordinated one claim to a major creditor, and characterized the indemnity claims as 'equity claims' under the CCAA, thereby subordinating them to unsecured creditors.

The Court of Appeal applied the Stelco test and denied leave to appeal, finding the issues were either factual, not of significance to the practice, or lacked prima facie merit.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out their statement of claim against the Law Society of Upper Canada under Rule 21.

The appellants alleged the Law Society was liable in negligence for failing to take appropriate action against lawyers who acted for other parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was precluded by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada due to a lack of proximity between the appellants and the Law Society.

The appellant pleaded guilty to importing and trafficking large amounts of cocaine and was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.

He appealed his sentence, arguing that his potential deportation could affect his eligibility for day parole.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that speculation regarding the effect of immigration status on day parole eligibility is irrelevant to determining the appropriate sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient grounds for the search warrant of his residence and that his section 8 Charter rights were violated because a Quebec search warrant was endorsed in Ontario without the proper record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the endorsing justice had sufficient information to carry out her statutory duty and that there was ample evidence in the Information to Obtain to link the appellant's drug activities to his residence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision on liability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The Court held that the 'full appreciation test' required a trial because the case turned substantially on credibility and disputed facts, including evidence of a joint venture involving street racing at excessive speeds and reckless driving.

The summary judgment was set aside and the motion dismissed.

The moving party (appellant) sought a stay pending appeal of an order removing notices it had registered on the responding parties' land.

The moving party claimed an interest in the land based on a contingent option to purchase in a Development Management Agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious question to be tried because the option likely offended the rule against perpetuities, and the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a monetary judgment from a Michigan court.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Michigan court, which gave the Ontario court jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.

The court also found that the narrow exceptions to enforcement set out in Beals v. Saldanha did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondent on a guarantee of a second commercial mortgage.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding he waived his right to raise deficiencies in the respondent's prior enforcement attempts and in concluding there were no genuine issues for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant waived any prior deficiencies by signing a forbearance agreement, which was subsequently breached.

The Court also found the appellant's evidence of an alleged oral forbearance agreement with the first mortgagee consisted of bald assertions unsupported by documentary evidence, raising no genuine issue for trial.

The appellant appealed a bankruptcy court judge's refusal to annul his bankruptcy or stay it pending the outcome of his damages action against the Canada Revenue Agency in the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the bankruptcy judge.

The Court noted that the CRA exercised its statutory right to vote down the appellant's proposal, and the Federal Court action would not affect the legal validity of the bankruptcy.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $1,500.

The appellant appealed an application judge's decision granting certiorari to quash a committal for trial for manslaughter and committing him for second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing evidence and preferring inferences favourable to the accused.

However, the Court found the application judge erred by directly committing the appellant for trial on second degree murder.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a mandamus order was issued remitting the matter to the preliminary inquiry judge to commit the appellant for trial on second degree murder.

The appellant sued the Center for Addiction and Mental Health for allegedly improper detention, treatment, and medication while involuntarily detained.

The respondent moved to dismiss the action, supported by an expert report stating the standard of care was met and exceeded.

The motion judge dismissed the action because the appellant provided no evidence to challenge the expert opinion.

The Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.