ONCA 2018

A lessor of vehicles sought to establish that it was entitled to third-party liability insurance coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued by the respondent insurer.

The dispute centered on whether an OPCF 5 endorsement, which permits lessors to lease vehicles and provides coverage to both lessors and lessees, was part of the Certificate of Automobile Insurance.

The application judge found the endorsement was not part of the policy.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the Certificate contained the phrase "AS PER OPCF 5 FORMS" which the insurer had added to its standard form, and that this language, combined with the commercial context of the transaction, demonstrated the insurer's intent to provide liability coverage to both the lessor and lessee.

The appellant appealed from orders made over ten years prior determining equalization, child support, and spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The appellant had failed to appear at trial in 2007 and at a subsequent motion to set aside the trial order in 2008.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's serious mental health issues, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which rendered her incapable of attending the proceedings.

The court found that the appellant's absence was excused and that procedural fairness required setting aside the trial and motion orders.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the issues of equalization and support, set aside a garnishment order, and required the respondent to return garnished funds with interest.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault of his neighbor and sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment followed by three years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including that the trial judge erred in finding no air of reality to a mistaken belief in consent defense, that the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the complainant's demeanor and mental health history, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the trial judge improperly used prior consistent statements.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable, the defense arguments were properly addressed, and the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion judge found that the action amounted to an attempt to relitigate unsuccessful proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada Labour Code adjudicator, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal, with bald allegations of fraud, obstruction of justice, blackmail, and criminal conduct lacking factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no merit in the appellant's three grounds of appeal: unlawful application of Rule 2.1.01(1), malicious use of language by the motion judge, and alleged infringement of Charter rights.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of three children to the respondent with specified access rights, ordering child support of $622 per month based on an imputed income of $31,600, and requiring an equalization payment of $211,220.17.

The appeal raised issues concerning access time for religious and festive occasions, the inclusion and valuation of a Pakistan pension for income imputation purposes, and the inclusion and valuation of Pakistan property and jewelry for equalization purposes.

The appellant also alleged trial judge bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact and no evidence of bias.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that detained an NCR accused who had been under the Board's jurisdiction for over a decade following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Board determined the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety despite fresh evidence from a clinical forensic psychologist indicating low risk on stalking-specific assessment tools.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that the evidence fell short of establishing a significant threat to public safety and that the Board had effectively reversed the burden of proof by relying solely on a moderate-risk HCR-20 V3 assessment without proper expert contextualization.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with monthly reporting requirements.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was reasonable based on evidence that the appellant intended to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged, had persistent persecutory delusions, and had a history of cannabis use that exacerbated his mental condition.

The court found it reasonable for the Board to conclude that absolute discharge would likely result in medication cessation, decompensation, and increased risk of threatening behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with reporting and drug testing requirements.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault with a weapon in 2007, sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board's conclusion that the appellant would likely discontinue antipsychotic medication, increase cannabis use, and decompensate into psychosis was supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight into his need for medication and his history of drug use.

The appellant appealed convictions for possession of marijuana, cocaine and MDMA for purposes of trafficking, and possession of a prohibited weapon, challenging the lawfulness of his arrest on the basis that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that police had received a detailed tip from a confidential informant that was corroborated through vehicle registration searches, and that subsequent surveillance observations of suspicious interactions consistent with drug trafficking provided reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The search incident to arrest was therefore lawful.

The appellant, New Era Development (2011) Inc., appealed a summary judgment decision granting fees of $400,000 to the respondent mortgage broker, Rescon Financial Corporation, and dismissing New Era's counterclaim.

The dispute concerned whether Rescon was entitled to commission upon producing an acceptable commitment letter or only upon actual funding.

The motion judge found the commitment letter acceptable, rejected New Era's defences based on fiduciary duty breach, negligence, and statutory violations, and dismissed the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding no genuine issues requiring trial.

The appellant appealed a sentence of concurrent 12-month sentences followed by three years probation imposed for two counts of breaching court orders forbidding contact with the complainant.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in principle by misapprehending evidence regarding threats.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence and upheld the sentence, noting the appellant's history of five previous breach convictions, his failure to be deterred by earlier sentences, and the devastating impact on the victim.

The appellant appealed a certiorari decision that refused to quash an Ontario Court of Justice decision denying the return of marijuana seized from the appellant after charges of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking were withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish he was lawfully entitled to possession of the cannabis and did not have a licence authorizing possession at the time of seizure.

The certiorari judge did not err in concluding that no error or excess of jurisdiction occurred.

Two appeals from a trial judgment concerning liability for environmental remediation of real property contaminated by dry cleaning solvents.

The trial judge found Fraser Hillary's Limited liable in nuisance and under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act, awarding over $1.8 million in damages for remediation.

The action against David Hillary was dismissed.

Fraser appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in finding it liable in nuisance and under the EPA.

The plaintiff appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to find negligence, failing to find the individual defendant liable in nuisance or negligence, and in assessing damages.

The appellate court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial judgment.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his second motion to change child and spousal support and granting the respondent's cross-motion.

The appellant had failed to produce required financial disclosure, including income tax returns, despite multiple court orders over two years.

The motion judge dismissed the motion based on this failure to disclose.

The appellant sought to introduce his 2015 and 2016 tax returns as fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined to admit the fresh evidence and upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the appellant had not met the test for introducing fresh evidence and had failed in his fundamental duty to disclose financial information.

The court rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments, noting he had benefitted from judicial indulgences rather than suffered unfairness.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for delay.

The action arose from two separate events in 2009—an alleged slip and fall accident and a motor vehicle accident—and had been ongoing since 2011.

A timetable was imposed in 2015 requiring completion of discoveries, mediation, and trial set-down by specific dates.

The appellant failed to comply with the timetable.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.

The appellants, Smiles First Corporation and Union Health and Dental Centre Inc., appealed the dismissal of their application under section 21 of the Commercial Tenancies Act and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The core dispute involved a head lease assignment dated October 31, 2016, from the intermediate tenant to Smiles First, and the effect of the intermediate tenant's subsequent abandonment of the head lease on Smiles First's sublease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the head lease assignment was ineffective due to lack of landlord consent, Smiles First remained entitled to possession of the premises as a subtenant under the sublease, which survived the head lease surrender.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking her statement of claim without leave to amend on two grounds: that the action was commenced beyond the applicable limitation period and that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action for civil fraud.

The appellant sought damages for fraudulent billing submissions to OHIP and alleged inability to obtain travel insurance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's own pleadings admitted discovery of the alleged fraud in 2009, which triggered the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the improper use of rule 21.01(1)(a) to advance a limitations defence and the inappropriate reliance on rule 21.01(1)(b) after the respondents had filed a statement of defence joining issue on the material facts.

The appellant appealed both his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the appellant and the complainant.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that the trial judge's reasons must be construed as a whole and that the Crown's case had great strength based on eyewitness and technical evidence, including blood alcohol content corroborating that the complainant was incapacitated.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the sentence was not unfit given the gravity of the offence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that she holds a permanent easement over part of the respondent's property.

The two parties own neighbouring houses in Toronto.

The appellant claimed a right of easement over the passageway between the properties based on historical use by the former owner of her property for cleaning and repairs.

The application judge found that the historical use was permissive and infrequent, not "as of right" as required for a prescriptive easement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's characterization of the occasional permissive use and affirming that the threshold for establishing an easement is high.