ONCA 2018

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 years for attempted murder, along with 1.5 years consecutive on two counts of failure to comply with probation.

The appellant had repeatedly harassed a female acquaintance, was convicted of criminal harassment, and subsequently appeared at her home armed with weapons and homemade bombs.

During a confrontation, he stabbed a family member multiple times, inflicting serious injuries.

The Court of Appeal upheld the attempted murder sentence as appropriate and within the sentencing range for such offences, but allowed the appeal in part by making the failure to comply sentences concurrent rather than consecutive, reducing the overall sentence from 16.5 years to 16 years before credit for pre-sentence custody.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision, the appellant challenged the application judge's interpretation of a management agreement and the restated articles of incorporation concerning Class C shares of an investment fund.

The appellant argued that a payment it made to itself should be characterized as debt rather than an unauthorized performance dividend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error or extricable error in law.

The court affirmed that the payment was an undeclared and unauthorized performance dividend, and that nothing in the fund's articles converted it into debt.

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the appellants.

The appellants sought recovery of costs from the respondents, specifically requesting the same amounts that had been awarded to them at first instance ($51,885.55 from Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation and $14,017.28 from Dennis and Peggy Condos).

The respondents sought no costs, arguing that all parties were victims of fraud and that the contest was between victims.

The court awarded costs to the appellants as requested, finding this to be a just and fair disposition given that the appellants were successful on all aspects of the appeal and that no costs of the appeal had been awarded to them despite their success.

In supplementary reasons following an appeal regarding property ownership, the Court of Appeal addressed outstanding financial issues between former spouses.

The court ordered the respondent to reimburse the appellant for mortgage and property tax payments she made on his half-interest in a jointly owned property, finding he would otherwise be unjustly enriched.

The court also awarded the appellant additional occupation rent for the post-trial period.

Given divided success on the main appeal issues, the court ordered the parties to bear their own costs for both the trial and the appeal.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent following conviction for careless use of a firearm under s. 86(3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, a licensed gun owner, fired a semi-automatic restricted firearm inside his apartment while intoxicated, discharging three bullets.

One bullet penetrated into a neighboring apartment where a child's toys were stored.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional discharge demonstrably unfit, holding that the sentencing judge erred in placing insufficient weight on general deterrence and denunciation, and in treating intoxication as a mitigating rather than aggravating factor.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted a suspended sentence with probation.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of a prohibited firearm under s. 92(1).

He was sentenced to 96 months on the first offence and 80 months concurrent on the second, with 44 months credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown opposed bail on the basis that detention was necessary in the public interest.

The motion judge found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the appellant would surrender as required, the appellant failed to demonstrate that detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his application for certiorari to quash a committal to trial for robbery.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly concluded there was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to infer the appellant was the robber.

The video evidence of the robbery combined with DNA evidence linking the appellant to t-shirts worn during the robbery was found to be sufficient to support the committal.

The appellant appealed his conviction on three counts of fraud over $5,000 and his sentence.

The appellant challenged the lawfulness of his detention by police and raised Charter breaches under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police detention was lawful, as officers had authority to investigate a vehicle parked in an empty community centre parking lot at 3:00 a.m. with its motor running and lights on.

The court declined to address the section 10 Charter issues as they were not raised at trial.

The court affirmed the conviction for fraud, finding the trial judge properly applied the elements of fraud and that the evidence supported guilt on all counts.

The court also found no error in principle in the sentencing decision and declined to interfere with the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered on July 6, 2016 by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant pleaded guilty following a ruling dismissing his Charter application.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's Charter ruling, which was based on findings of fact.

The appellant raised issues regarding his treatment during arrest and suggested ineffective assistance of counsel, but had not properly pursued such claims.

The court found no basis to conclude the guilty plea was not voluntary and informed.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing an appeal of a trial judgment in a civil action involving allegations of excessive force during arrest.

The respondent sought to avoid paying the costs of the appeal on the basis that the matter constituted public interest litigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that the nature of the proceeding did not fall within the recognized categories of public interest litigation.

The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

L'intimé a déposé une motion en vertu de la règle 61.06 des Règles de procédure civile pour obtenir une ordonnance de cautionnement pour dépens d'un montant de 10 000 $.

La motion découlait d'une procédure matrimoniale où les parties avaient résolu la plupart des questions en litige, la question principale au procès étant le partage des biens familiaux.

Le juge de première instance avait rendu un jugement obligeant l'appelante à payer l'intimé 128 560 $ pour sa part du foyer conjugal et obligeant l'intimé à faire un paiement d'égalisation de 144 934,47 $ par roulement de pension.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de cette décision.

A condominium corporation issued a clean status certificate to the respondent when he purchased a unit in 2013.

When the respondent requested a new status certificate in 2016 to market the unit for sale, the corporation noted that the unit layout had been altered without Board consent, contrary to the declaration.

The respondent sought a declaration that the corporation was estopped from noting such matters in the subsequent certificate.

The application judge granted the relief sought, finding the corporation bound by its earlier clean certificate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while the corporation is bound by its earlier certificate as against the original purchaser, it is not estopped from disclosing newly discovered matters in subsequent certificates.

The corporation's obligation to disclose material information to prospective purchasers overrides any estoppel argument.

The appellant was convicted of three firearms-related offences arising from his possession of a loaded .45 calibre handgun discovered during a dynamic nighttime search of his home.

The search warrant was issued via telewarrant and targeted the appellant's son.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the application of the Garofoli step six procedure, the reasonableness of the dynamic entry execution, and sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and 2 years' probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and the sentence appeal.

On appeal from a motion judge's decision, the franchisor appealed the finding that the franchise agreement had been validly rescinded under section 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, and the dismissal of its cross-motion for damages.

The franchisee cross-appealed certain ancillary issues.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the franchisor on all issues.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs for both the underlying motions for summary judgment and the appeal.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion to set aside a security for costs order made by Gillese J.A. The order required each moving party to post $15,000 as security for costs in their appeal from a lower court decision.

The motion was brought almost seven months after the deadline prescribed by Rule 61.16(6), which requires service and filing within four days of the order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had formed a bona fide intention to challenge the order within the required timeframe, the lack of merit in the proposed motion and significant prejudice to the respondent outweighed these factors.

The court emphasized the respondent's history of unpaid costs orders and the vexatious nature of the litigation.

The appellant brought a motion to review a decision ordering her to post security for costs of $20,000 for her appeal.

The appellant, acting in person, confirmed she had no ability to pay costs and hinted she would refuse to pay in any event.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the appeal had scant prospects of success and was frivolous.

The appellant would need to demonstrate palpable and overriding errors by the trial judge on both the limitations issue and the merits of the case.

The court found the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were not undermined by the evidence presented.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The appellant fell asleep at the wheel while driving under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine, causing a serious collision that injured two victims.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's arguments that the sentence was unfit, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered the relevant principles, the serious nature of the offence, the appellant's status as a novice driver, and the catastrophic consequences of the accident.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly drew inferences of knowledge and control based on the appellant's possession of a key to the locked bedroom where contraband was found, his attempt to enter the bedroom immediately after police entry, and the discovery of his social insurance card in a drawer adjacent to where drugs were found, along with buy money.

The court found this constellation of evidence created a powerful inference of possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

A registered investment firm appealed a trial judgment finding that it had constructively dismissed a trader and defamed her by filing a Notice of Termination with IIROC stating she was dismissed for cause for unauthorized trading.

The trial judge ordered the firm to correct the notice.

On a motion for a stay of the mandatory order pending appeal, the court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald and dismissed the motion.

The court found the appeal raised a serious question but that the appellant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the respondent suffered ongoing professional harm from the defamatory statements and the appeal would not be rendered moot by compliance with the order.

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.