ONCA 2019

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to impute an income of $50,000 to the respondent for purposes of calculating spousal support.

The trial judge had found that the respondent was intentionally underemployed and determined that he was capable of earning between $35-$40 per hour, equivalent to approximately $75,000 annually for at least two-thirds of the year.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error, no legal error, nor any error in principle in the trial judge's determination and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision denying most of the proposed amendments to the statement of claim.

The core issue was whether the proposed amendments asserted a new cause of action after the expiry of the limitation period.

The motion judge found that the addition of allegations of an intentional tort and new heads of damages constituted a new cause of action under Rule 26.06.

The motion judge also determined that discoverability was not an issue requiring trial, based on admissions that the appellant was aware of the relevant facts in 2015.

The appeal was dismissed with limited exceptions.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 9, 2019.

On consent of both parties, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,250, inclusive of all fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes.

The costs were to be paid in accordance with the directions provided by the trial judge in the original judgment.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring it to return a pre-authorized debit payment of $83,734.05 made post-NOI (Notice of Intention to file a proposal) to the respondent, less amounts owing for post-NOI fuel purchases.

The motion judge found the payment constituted a prohibited remedy under section 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether the parties had entered into a legitimate agreement to pay past debts in order to secure future fuel supply.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his cellmate at a detention centre by forcing him to engage in oral sex on three occasions.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's credibility assessments were properly reasoned and entitled to substantial deference.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the four-year sentence was fit and properly reflected the principles of sentencing.

The victim surcharge imposed at trial was set aside.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and assault involving a child victim between ages 11 and 14.

The respondent had made admissions in a voluntary police statement but denied the allegations at trial.

The trial judge found the respondent's denials not credible and characterized portions of the police statement as a confession to a sexual crime, yet acquitted the respondent.

The appellate court found the trial judge engaged in faulty reasoning, failed to make necessary findings of fact, failed to reconcile conflicting evidence, and provided insufficient reasons for the acquittal.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all counts.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the condominium corporation an order to enter and inspect a unit following a complaint about noise emanating from the staircase.

The appellants denied entry and issued a trespass notice.

The appellants raised seven grounds of appeal in their factum but narrowed their argument at hearing to a single contention that there was no evidentiary basis for the condominium board to carry out an inspection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the condominium corporation had a right and duty under the Condominium Act to ensure compliance with legislation and to inspect the unit to gather information about the nature and extent of the suspected problem.

Appeal from a summary judgment enforcing personal guarantees against the appellants in connection with an equipment lease agreement.

The appellants, who signed personal guarantees relating to Altavision Plus Inc.'s obligations under a 2009 equipment lease with Maxium Financial Services Inc., challenged the motion judge's decision on four grounds: (1) misinterpretation of the governing law clause; (2) failure to recognize a defence based on Maxium's failure to claim insurance coverage; (3) loss of standing due to assignment of receivables to Sun Life; and (4) unreasonableness of the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the summary judgment.

Four co-accused appealed convictions arising from a large-scale police investigation into criminal gang activity in Toronto (Project Battery and Project Rx).

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of wiretap authorizations and general warrants, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The key issues involved: (1) material non-disclosure regarding the use of a Mobile Device Identifier (MDI); (2) warrantless police entries into common areas of condominium buildings; and (3) warrantless installation of hidden surveillance cameras in condominium hallways.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but found that the warrantless installation of hidden cameras violated section 8 rights.

However, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellants' convictions were dismissed except for a one-year sentence reduction for one appellant due to the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence regarding drug quantities.

This appeal and cross-appeal arose from a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of used vehicles.

The trial judge found the appellant garage liable for conversion of five missing vehicles and awarded damages of $40,792.

The trial judge dismissed conversion claims regarding consigned vehicles, finding the parties acquired them in good faith without notice of defects in title.

The appellants challenged the findings regarding stolen vehicles, mitigation of damages, quantum of damages, and the failure to adjudicate certain counterclaims.

The respondents cross-appealed the mercantile agent finding and the costs award.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, with limited relief granted for a contribution and indemnity claim against one defendant.

Two appellants were convicted of murder arising from a shooting in Toronto allegedly motivated by street gang rivalries.

The appellants appealed their convictions on four grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in admitting expert opinion evidence on street gangs from a Toronto Police Service detective; (2) the trial judge erred in admitting handwritten rap lyrics seized from an apartment; (3) the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on eyewitness identification evidence; and (4) the trial judge's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and the sentence appeal, finding that while the trial judge committed an error in principle regarding expert evidence bias analysis, the evidence was properly admitted.

The court also found the jury instructions on eyewitness identification were adequate and fair, and that the trial judge's conduct, though at times harsh, did not demonstrate bias when viewed contextually.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter involving custody of a child.

The respondent father sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $105,350.14 for the motion to stay, motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal.

The appellant mother sought either no costs or a modest award due to her strained financial circumstances, having already been ordered to pay $200,000 in trial costs and earning approximately $40,000 annually.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father in the reduced sum of $40,000, considering the length and complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues, proportionality, and the appellant's financial circumstances.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on two counts of sexual assault.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent based on credibility findings regarding the complainant, relying on eleven factors that the trial judge described as significant but not determinative.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's credibility assessment was tainted by reliance on discredited myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims, including assumptions about the complainant's dress, the absence of immediate reporting, and expected victim conduct.

The Court held that the trial judge's reasoning, anchored in "common sense and life experiences," impermissibly adopted stereotypical reasoning that had no place in assessing credibility.

The Court found a sufficient nexus between the legal errors and the acquittal, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the acquittal and ordering a new trial.

An appeal from a committal order for extradition to the United States.

The appellant challenged the committal judge's dismissal of a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from searches of electronic devices.

The searches were authorized by warrants based on information from an iPhone examined and seized during U.S. Customs preclearance at Pearson Airport.

The Court of Appeal found that the examination of the iPhone violated section 8 of the Charter because it occurred after the appellant was detained.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new extradition hearing to determine whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter and whether sufficient evidence remains for committal.

The appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse and one count of threatening bodily harm against his daughter.

On appeal, the appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to use evidence of the appellant's prior convictions for assault of his wife to determine whether the wife testified out of fear, and second, that the trial judge's review of the appellant's evidence was brief and unbalanced.

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

The appellant, a permanent resident of Canada, appealed his conviction on the basis that his guilty pleas were uninformed.

He was unaware of the serious immigration consequences of his pleas, specifically that he would be deported without a right of appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearm-related offences and possession of cocaine.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating that trial counsel did not adequately inform the appellant of the specific immigration consequences, and that the appellant would have proceeded to trial had he been aware of the deportation consequences.

The court found the appellant satisfied both prongs of the test for setting aside a guilty plea: lack of awareness of a legally relevant consequence and prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty pleas were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior discreditable conduct involving other neighbours regarding noise complaints.

The appellant had strangled and slit the throat and wrists of his neighbour following a dispute over alleged noise from her unit.

The trial judge admitted evidence of the appellant's aggressive behaviour toward other neighbours over noise complaints to establish his state of mind and provide context for the interaction with the victim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's careful balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

Homeowners appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their motion for a declaration that the respondents breached a Minutes of Settlement and granting the respondents declaratory relief enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The motion judge found that the respondents had complied with the Minutes of Settlement based on evidence that the work had been completed, including HVAC work, plumbing obligations, and permit closures.

The appellants advanced numerous grounds of appeal, all of which were dismissed.

The appellants sought to appeal an order quashing their motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, certificates of pending litigation, and Norwich orders.

The Court of Appeal determined that the quashed order was interlocutory in nature, not final, as it did not finally determine the real matter in dispute—whether fraud was perpetrated—but rather addressed collateral issues pending trial.

The court held that interlocutory orders must be appealed with leave to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted without prejudice to the appellants' right to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, mischief, threatening death, and assault with a weapon, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her continued detention in a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant challenged the Board's application of the significant risk test and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the legal test applied or its application to the evidence.

The Board properly considered the appellant's history of medication non-compliance, continued cannabis use in breach of conditions, and recent aggressive incidents with co-patients as active risk factors supporting a finding of significant risk to public safety.