ONCA 2018

A self-represented litigant appealed eight decisions from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his actions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a vexatious litigant designation under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant's claims related to complaints about interactions with government agencies, law enforcement, and mental health and medical personnel spanning multiple years and incidents.

The Court of Appeal upheld all dismissals, finding the pleadings fell far short of procedural requirements, failed to advance any justiciable cause of action, and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious proceedings including rambling discourse, grandiose damage claims, and repetitious allegations across multiple proceedings.

The appellant appealed a 54-month global sentence imposed following conviction for possession for purposes of trafficking methamphetamine, marijuana, and morphine, as well as simple possession of other controlled substances.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, that the judge failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances, improperly considered defence conduct as aggravating, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The appellate court found the trial judge's paramount concerns of denunciation and deterrence were appropriate, that mitigating factors were properly considered, and that the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record spanning over three decades with approximately eight prior convictions for possession for purpose of trafficking.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction on one count of aggravated assault (acquitted on attempted murder) and his designation as a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the verdicts were irreconcilable, and second, that the trial judge erred in failing to limit the use of bad character evidence relating to a prior assault.

The appellant also appealed the dangerous offender designation, arguing the trial judge failed to make sufficient factual findings regarding the index offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts were logically reconcilable, the jury received adequate instructions on character evidence, and the trial judge made sufficient factual findings to support the dangerous offender designation.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault following a trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

The trial judge found that the appellant, a bar security head, had smashed the complainant's head against glass doors and punched him in the face, causing lacerations including one that severed the complainant's tear duct.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding causation.

The Crown appealed the sentence of suspended passing and three-year probation.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge made critical errors regarding the essential link between the appellant's assault and the wounding injury, but determined the appellant was properly found guilty of the included offence of assault simpliciter.

The court substituted the verdict accordingly and affirmed the sentence.

The appellant husband appealed an order striking his pleading in a matrimonial proceeding concerning equalization of assets.

The motion judge had struck the pleading for non-compliance with disclosure obligations in a consent order.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error by relying on four items not contained in the consent order or the record.

The court set aside the striking order and gave the appellant 30 days to comply with the consent order, particularly regarding an accounting of $300,000 in cash removed from a bank account between 2013 and 2015.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to vary a Mareva injunction granted in favour of Trade Capital against The Cash House.

The motion judge allowed Maple Trust to seize funds in a specific account under a writ of seizure and sale.

The appellant argued that a temporary stay should have been granted to allow it to trace stolen funds into the account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if a serious issue regarding tracing could be demonstrated, the balance of convenience favoured Maple Trust, which had acted in good faith in obtaining its judgment and pursuing execution.

The appellant's Mareva injunction gave it no proprietary interest in the funds, and there was no basis for the third party to suffer prejudice.

The appellant husband appealed from a motion judge's order that struck his reply factum, rectified an overpayment of trust funds, and struck his pleadings for failure to comply with court orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on three grounds: the husband was denied the opportunity to respond fully to the wife's motion to strike; the motion judge overstated the wife's efforts to move the case to trial; and the motion judge failed to consider whether lesser remedies would suffice.

The court set aside the order striking the pleadings and substituted specific disclosure orders with consequences for non-compliance.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the ownership of two Mexican condominiums purchased with funds contributed by both spouses.

The appellant claimed he held title to the properties through company shares on resulting trust for the wife in respect of half their value, seeking this arrangement because the properties had declined in value since separation, which would benefit him in the equalization calculation.

The trial judge rejected the resulting trust claim, finding the presumption had been rebutted based on all the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his sentence for two counts of possession of morphine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking while incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.

The sentencing judge imposed a two-year sentence but did not specify whether it was concurrent or consecutive to the appellant's existing robbery sentence.

The sentencing judge later amended the Information to indicate the sentence was consecutive without notifying or reconvening the parties.

The appellant was released on statutory release based on the concurrent interpretation, but was re-arrested after the amendment.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence, as the amendment was not consistent with the judge's manifest intentions and the failure to notify and reconvene the parties seriously compromised the appearance of fairness.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to set aside a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for a shortfall on a repossessed motorcycle.

The appellant claimed her signature on the guarantee was forged by her deceased husband.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating grounds to set aside the judgment, provided no expert evidence of forgery, offered no adequate explanation for the two-and-a-half-year delay, and would have caused prejudice to the respondent given the four-year delay in enforcement.

The respondent, Dixie Lee Ontario Ltd., served a notice of appeal out of time and without seeking an extension.

A chambers judge subsequently granted an extension of time to serve and file the notice of appeal.

The moving party brought a motion to review the chambers judge's order.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal unmeritorious, as the motion judge had expressly addressed and rejected the respondent's arguments regarding breach and repudiation of the guarantee contract.

Additionally, the respondent lacked independent status to proceed with the appeal given the terms of a receivership order that had been granted over its assets.

The motion was granted and the extension order was set aside.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal by Willowbrook Nurseries Inc. against Royal Bank of Canada.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondent bank in the amount of $20,000.00 all-inclusive for the costs of the appeal.

The Crown appealed a motion judge's order striking its third party claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Crown's third party claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the respondent plaintiff amended his pleading to include language that would render the Crown's third party claim subject to being struck.

As a result, while the appeal was allowed, the practical outcome remained that the Crown's third party claim was struck.

The court awarded costs in accordance with the motion judge's decision, with each party bearing their own costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and were properly reasoned.

The trial judge had provided ample justification for accepting the complainant's evidence and properly assessed conflicting testimony.

The court found no differential standard of scrutiny was applied to defence evidence and that the trial judge properly cautioned himself against treating the case as merely a credibility test.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing an application.

The Court of Appeal reversed the application decision.

As a result, the costs order awarded to the respondent in the amount of $45,000 was set aside, and costs in the application were awarded to the appellant on a partial indemnity basis in the same amount, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

An appeal concerning jurisdiction to review a youth justice court decision regarding access to youth records under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Toronto Police Service and a police officer appealed a youth court judge's decision denying access to records.

The Superior Court judge allowed the appeal and ordered production of records.

The Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the youth court decision under section 40(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the YCJA is federal legislation.

While certiorari under Part XXVI of the Criminal Code provides an alternative review route, the Court of Appeal declined to determine the appeal on the merits due to the procedural irregularities and set aside the Superior Court decision.

The appellant was convicted of bank robbery and related offences following a trial by judge alone.

The main issue at trial was the identity of the robber, with evidence being circumstantial.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on DNA evidence linking him to a pocket knife left at the crime scene and a t-shirt found in the getaway vehicle.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reasonableness of the verdict.

The majority upheld the conviction, finding that the cumulative circumstantial evidence excluded any reasonable alternative to guilt.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding that the DNA evidence lacked a temporal connection to the robbery and that alternative explanations remained reasonable.

The appellant appealed from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 29, 2016 and December 6, 2016, as well as an associated costs award dated June 3, 2016.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement awarding costs to the respondent, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant, a Jamaican citizen and former permanent resident of Canada, was detained for five years by the Canada Border Services Agency pending removal to Jamaica following a removal order based on serious criminality.

The appellant brought a habeas corpus application and sought Charter damages under sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his detention was arbitrary, indefinite, and constituted cruel and unusual treatment.

The application judge dismissed the Charter damages claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no breach of the Charter rights and clarifying that Charter damages claims cannot be joined to habeas corpus applications.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the trial judge for breach of a court order.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's position without providing the appellant's counsel an opportunity to make further submissions regarding the trial judge's inclination to impose a greater sentence.

The Court of Appeal found this to be an error in procedure.

On review of the fitness of the sentence de novo, the court determined that the Crown's requested sentence was fit and varied the sentence to 12 months less pre-trial custody of 219 days.