ONCA 2017

The appellant appealed a trial judgment in a motor vehicle accident case, alleging various trial errors constituted a miscarriage of justice, including leading questions by plaintiff's counsel, mention of independent medical examinations, discussion between counsel and plaintiff after cross-examination, mention of insurance, admission of opinion evidence from a body shop manager regarding vehicle speed, and the trial judge's charge excluding a zero award of general damages.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the costs award, alleging the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to proportionality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the leave to appeal on costs, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the trial events or costs decision.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment holding it liable for the full unpaid purchase price of frozen shrimp ($228,604.50 US) plus prejudgment interest.

The dispute arose from a contract between a Toronto-based company and a Belgian seafood trader for the purchase of shrimp from an Ecuadorian supplier.

The motion judge determined liability under Ontario common law without addressing whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applied.

The Court of Appeal found that the proper law of the contract was a threshold issue that should have been addressed, as the Convention applies to international sales of goods between parties in different contracting states.

The court set aside the summary judgment and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

On appeal from a trial judgment, the appellant House challenged the trial judge's findings regarding municipal liability for winter road maintenance, apportionment of fault, and the discount rate applied to damages.

The trial judge found that the Township of Wilmot was not liable for the accident despite unanticipated ice formation on Huron Road, as the municipality met its statutory defences under the Municipal Act.

The trial judge apportioned fault equally (50/50) between House as driver and Baird as vehicle owner, whose defective tires contributed to the loss of control.

The Court of Appeal dismissed House's appeal on all three issues and also dismissed Baird's cross-appeal regarding costs.

The appellant appealed her sentence for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

She had been sentenced to 12 months' custody plus 10 months' probation based on the mandatory one-year minimum sentence under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

However, the sentencing judge expressed regret at being required to impose the mandatory minimum.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum as unconstitutional in R. v. Lloyd.

The Crown consented to the appeal, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for resentencing.

The appellant, an accounting firm's client, appealed a judgment in favour of Collins Barrow Toronto LLP for unpaid audit services invoices.

The appellant argued the application should have been converted to an action based on allegations of negligence in service provision and that certain invoices were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in determining the matter under the Rules of Civil Procedure based on contract interpretation, rejecting the conversion argument due to insufficient evidence of negligence and damages, and finding the limitation period analysis sound based on the express terms of the engagement letters.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of attempted murder following a judge-alone trial.

The charges arose from the appellant using his motor vehicle as a weapon against two complainants.

The sole issue at trial was whether the appellant intended to kill the complainants.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to consider evidence that, if he had intended to kill the complainants, he would have driven at them while they lay helpless on the ground after being struck.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not make a finding that the complainants had been struck and rendered helpless, having identified credibility and reliability issues with their evidence.

Instead, the trial judge relied on evidence from three independent neighbours and forensic evidence, including photographs showing tire tracks and extensive damage.

The Court upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant pursued the complainants at high speed with intent to kill was reasonable and grounded in the evidence.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his negligence action against his former lawyers and ordering him to pay costs.

The action arose from the lawyers' representation in a companion motor vehicle accident claim.

The Superior Court dismissed the action because the appellant twice failed to attend a court-ordered defence medical examination by a neurologist, and made clear his intention never to comply with such an order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge had no alternative but to dismiss the claim given the appellant's refusal to comply with the court order.

An employer appealed a summary judgment awarding an employee 18 months reasonable notice at common law for wrongful termination.

The motion judge found that the employer breached the termination clause in the employment agreement by failing to consider the employee's years of service, position, and age when fashioning the termination package, thereby repudiating the entire employment agreement.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that the motion judge decided the case on a legal theory of liability that was neither pleaded nor advanced by the employee, denying the employer the opportunity to lead responsive evidence and compromising hearing fairness.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.

The appellant sought damages of approximately $1 million for losses sustained when a drainage pipe running underneath a floor installed by the respondent caused a flood in its warehouse.

The trial judge dismissed the negligence claim, finding that although the respondent damaged the drainage pipe by puncturing it with a stake used to brace concrete forms, the respondent nevertheless met the standard of care.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to consider contractual duties, erred in foreseeability analysis, and erred in not determining whether industry practice was itself negligent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the standard of care, foreseeability analysis, or treatment of industry practice.

The Crown appealed acquittals on sexual assault and related charges entered by the trial judge.

The complainant, the respondent's biological daughter, testified to two sexual assaults occurring approximately 10-11 years prior when she was 10-11 years old.

The trial judge acquitted on all counts, treating the timeframe alleged in the indictment as an essential element of the offence that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in law by requiring proof of the specific timeframe, as this was not an essential element of the offence.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant father appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice ordering him to pay retroactive and prospective child support, including extraordinary expenses and arrears.

Both parties were self-represented.

The Court of Appeal found that section 48 of the Family Law Act applied to the matter, which provides that appeals from Ontario Court of Justice orders under Part III (Support) lie to the Superior Court of Justice, not the Court of Appeal.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and quashed it.

The respondent was awarded costs of $1,500.

An insurer sought intervenor status in an action brought by insureds against third-party defendants to pursue a subrogated claim.

The insurer had failed to commence its own subrogated claim within the applicable limitation period.

The Court of Appeal held that an insured has no contractual or statutory obligation to include an insurer's subrogated claim in its action.

The insurer's failure to pursue its own claim within the limitation period could not be cured by seeking intervenor status.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant trust appealed from a summary judgment motion dismissal regarding a reassessment of provincial income tax under the Ontario Income Tax Act for the 2007 taxation year.

The central issue was whether waiver form T2029, a prescribed form under the federal Income Tax Act, operated to waive the limitation period for reassessing Ontario income tax.

The appellant argued that T2029 had never been prescribed for Ontario purposes and that government advice calling into question its prescription status prevented the waiver from operating.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, holding that section 48(15) of the Ontario Act deems any form purporting to be prescribed by the Provincial Minister to be a prescribed form unless called into question by the Provincial Minister.

The court found that T2029 clearly purports to be a prescribed form and had not been called into question by the appropriate authority.

On appeal from a trial decision in a family law matter involving equalization, spousal support, and costs following a 27-year marriage.

The trial judge had ordered an equalization payment, spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and full indemnity costs against the wife.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the equalization payment but found errors in the spousal support calculation and costs award, returning both issues to the trial judge for reconsideration.

On the second appeal, the Court of Appeal corrected the wife's income calculation to account for tax implications and eliminated double-counting, resulting in a higher spousal support award.

The costs award was upheld as reasonable given the wife's conduct.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment award of $310,040.88 in damages to its former employee, representing 19 months' pay in lieu of notice plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The motion judge had found the termination clause in the employment agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employer's offer of employment to the employee upon the sale of the business constituted valid consideration for the termination clause.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving variations to a single employment relationship, emphasizing that a new contract with a new employer was formed upon the business sale.

The court remitted the action to trial to address remaining issues regarding ESA compliance and other arguments not previously decided.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 5 years and 1 month (34.5 months to serve after credit) imposed for six counts of robbery, assault, and sexual assault committed against three women in a random attack lasting minutes.

The appellant challenged three aspects of the sentencing: the trial judge's treatment of lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, the minimal credit given for the guilty plea, and the calculation of pre-disposition custody credit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the third ground only, finding the trial judge erred by failing to account for 50 days of pre-disposition custody served between the sentencing hearing and judgment delivery, reducing the sentence to 32 months.

An appeal from a motion judge's order regarding a dispute between adjacent property owners over the use of a jointly-owned private roadway.

The appellant acquired property at 5 Hawthorne and took an assignment of an agreement governing the use and care of the private roadway.

The appellant parked vehicles on the roadway during renovations, which the respondent opposed.

The motion judge held that the agreement clearly prohibited parking on the roadway.

The appellant appealed, raising new arguments about an alleged amendment permitting parking on a brick pad adjacent to the properties.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding the agreement unambiguous and rejecting the appellant's new arguments.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed his conviction for fraud in the amount of approximately $1.9 million and his sentence of three and one-half years imprisonment.

The central issue on the conviction appeal was whether the appellant knew that his purported client did not exist.

The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a knowing participant in the fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversal of the burden of proof and that the inferences drawn by the trial judge were reasonably available on the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding that the additional six months imposed on the appellant compared to his co-accused was justified by his status as a lawyer and the aggravating role that status played in the commission of the offence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2017, challenging the Board's addition of a "24-hour-a-day" supervision requirement to a community accommodation condition.

The appellant contended this requirement was not part of the joint submission made at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, determining that the hearing transcript clearly showed counsel for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health had proposed a housing clause specifically including 24-hour staff supervision, which the appellant's counsel had supported.

The Board's disposition therefore accepted the parties' joint submission rather than departing from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent, a flooring contractor, was hired by the appellant general contractor to install sheet vinyl flooring at a long-term care facility.

When the respondent identified deficiencies in the sub-floor structure that prevented proper installation, the appellant refused to remedy the defects and instead directed the respondent to attempt a temporary fix.

After the temporary fix failed and the project architect required the flooring to be removed and replaced, the respondent refused to continue without payment for previous work and relief from warranty obligations.

The appellant hired another contractor to complete the work and counterclaimed for abandonment.

The trial judge found the respondent unable to perform due to sub-floor defects that were the appellant's responsibility to remedy, awarded damages for breach of contract, and dismissed the counterclaim.

The appellant appealed, and the respondent cross-appealed on damages assessment.