Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a noting in default and striking his amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the pleading failed to accord with the rules, failed to plead essential elements, and had no possible chance of success.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the order of the motion judge, who dismissed her motion to set aside the dismissal of her action.

The motion judge applied the Reid factors, finding no adequate explanation for the 10.5-year delay, lack of diligence, and that 7.5 years since the dismissal was too long to revive the action.

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

The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and related offences.

The Crown's case relied heavily on a co-accused who recanted his preliminary inquiry testimony at trial, providing exculpatory evidence for the appellant.

The trial judge admitted the preliminary inquiry testimony for the truth of its contents but failed to properly distinguish between the exculpatory and inculpatory portions in her Vetrovec warning to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury to seek confirmatory evidence for both the exculpatory and inculpatory portions of the testimony, rather than tying the exculpatory evidence to the reasonable doubt standard.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicants, appealing their convictions, sought disclosure or production of band lists used by the Court Services Division to prepare jury rolls in the Kenora District and Simcoe County.

They argued the lists were necessary to demonstrate systemic underrepresentation of First Nations persons on the jury rolls, which violated their Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding that the requested records met the 'likely relevant' test for third-party production under O'Connor, as they could be used to test the statements of Crown deponents and understand the jury roll preparation process.

The appellants sued the respondent for breach of confidence, alleging the respondent misused ticket booking data provided to it for billing and settlement purposes to create a competing data product.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the information was not communicated in confidence, largely due to the absence of a confidentiality clause in favour of the appellants in the relevant agreements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his assessment of the factual matrix and the reasonable person standard.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder for an execution-style shooting related to a drug debt.

On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding unsavoury witnesses (Vetrovec warning) and the defence of abandonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's continuum approach to the Vetrovec warnings, his instructions on confirmatory evidence, or his charge on abandonment.

The appellant, a lawyer, was found in contempt of court for violating a Mareva injunction after depositing a client's cheque into his trust account, deducting his fees, and returning the balance to the client.

The motion judge adjourned the matter to determine the appropriate sanction under Rule 60.11.

The appellant moved for a stay of the contempt finding pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that it was premature to grant a stay or entertain an appeal before the motion judge had imposed a sanction, as doing so would risk fragmenting the proceedings.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including assaulting a police officer with a sawed-off shotgun while on his way to commit arson.

The trial judge imposed a global sentence of 8 years and 9 months, which significantly exceeded the Crown's submission of 6 years.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was too harsh and that the trial judge erred by 'jumping' the Crown's submission without notice.

The Court of Appeal held that while trial judges should advise counsel before significantly exceeding Crown submissions, the sentence imposed was warranted given the extreme seriousness of the offences and the appellant's prior record.

The appellant farmer sued the respondent, claiming it supplied animal feed that caused death and illness to his livestock.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, noting the appellant failed to present expert evidence or cross-examine the respondent's affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to put his best foot forward and meet his evidentiary burden.

The appellant appealed a costs order of $22,263.24 plus HST made following the disposition of jointly tried issues under the Partition Act and Family Law Act.

The trial judge awarded costs to the respondent based on 80% success and an earlier offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the trial judge's discretionary costs award was supported by the record and not plainly wrong.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside an order striking their statement of defence under Rule 37.14.

The motion judge found that counsel's non-attendance at the initial motion was not due to mistake or accident, but was part of a pattern of delay and stonewalling.

The Court of Appeal upheld this factual finding and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge excluded evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge found that an untested informant tip and a brief, neutral observation of a meeting in a vehicle did not provide reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the arrest, subsequent searches of the respondent, his vehicle, and his residence, as well as a breach of the right to counsel, were unconstitutional.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant solicitors appealed a motion judge's decision upholding an assessment officer's reduction of their legal fees.

The assessment officer reduced the fees because the solicitors failed to adequately advise the client of the costs consequences of the tactics she insisted upon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer's conclusion was not unreasonable given the specific circumstances of the client, which required extra efforts to clarify the harsh realities of costs consequences.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissing his appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant argued that his guilty plea was equivocal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's decision, as the appellant had twice unequivocally acknowledged the accuracy of the facts supporting the constituent elements of the offence prior to his plea.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice Gray dated March 29, 2011.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, directing the parties to the endorsement in the companion appeal C53566.

The appellants appealed an order granting them an adjournment on the condition of a limited draw against debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing.

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

The court held that since the appellants sought the indulgence, the terms imposed were an entirely reasonable exercise of the motion judge's discretion.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision upholding his conviction for mischief to property.

The conviction arose from a dispute with his neighbour over a shared laneway, where the appellant placed debris to block the neighbour's use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the issues raised did not involve questions of law with jurisprudential significance beyond the case, and the merits of the appeal were not sufficiently strong to warrant granting leave.

The young person appealed their conviction for robbery and an imitation firearm offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence of party liability under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, as the young person approached the victim knowing of the plan to rob and encouraged the principal offender by menacing the victim.

There was also ample circumstantial evidence of liability under s. 21(2) for the gun offence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant's action was dismissed by the motion judge for failing to comply with discovery undertakings to produce an allergist's medical records.

The motion judge found the respondents were prejudiced because the records were allegedly destroyed after the 2006 discovery.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal, finding no evidence to support the assertion that the records were destroyed during that specific time period, and thus no basis for the finding of actual or potential prejudice.

The applicant sought a review of a single judge's decision dismissing his ex parte motion for a police investigation.

The single judge had noted that no Notice of Appeal was filed and the applicant had not complied with a lower court order requiring him to serve the municipality.

The Court of Appeal panel found the single judge was correct in holding she had no jurisdiction and dismissed the review.