ONCA 2020

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in fentanyl, raising three grounds: a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel, an unlawful search of a co-accused's cellphone under s. 8, and a misapplication of the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant repeatedly waived his right to counsel until 1:30 a.m., and that the subsequent breach was minor.

The court declined to consider the s. 8 claim due to an inadequate evidentiary record, as it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Finally, the court found the circumstantial case for trafficking was strong and the trial judge's reasons were unassailable.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that renewed his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to the risk of non-compliance with his medication if discharged absolutely without community monitoring.

The Crown applied for a review of a second bail judge's decision to release the accused, who was charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy.

The second bail judge had found a material change in circumstances based on new evidence regarding the identity of a purchaser of GPS trackers and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's application, finding that the second bail judge made a palpable and overriding error in assessing the strength of the Crown's case and erred in law by treating the pandemic as an automatic material change without considering it in the context of the first bail judge's findings.

The accused was ordered detained pending trial.

The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a single judge's decision denying permission to file a factum of at least 125 pages.

The panel found that the motion judge carefully considered the request and identified the relevant considerations.

Finding no reason to interfere, the panel dismissed the motion and ordered the appellant to file its factum within 30 days, with costs awarded to the respondents.

In an addendum to a previous appeal decision regarding a breached real estate contract, the Court of Appeal determined the amount of consequential damages owed to the appellants.

The appellants filed documentation establishing consequential losses of $28,536.64, which the respondents acknowledged as reasonable.

The court ordered the respondents to pay this amount in addition to the previously awarded damages, along with pre-judgment interest.

No order as to costs was made as the parties reached an agreement.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault after randomly attacking and raping a stranger walking home at night.

He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge misapplied Gladue principles by finding his Indigenous heritage moot due to the severity of the offence, and failed to apply principles of proportionality and restraint.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in his Gladue analysis, the 12-year sentence remained fit given the egregious nature of the random attack and the need to prioritize denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a motion judge's order that dismissed his request for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The motion judge had noted the appellant previously missed an extended deadline, the appeal lacked merit, and the appellant's pleadings had been struck below.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the motion with costs.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal from an order that appointed an investigative monitor, released interim funds, granted an interim injunction, converted an application to an action, added parties, and refused to seal the court file.

The Court of Appeal held that all aspects of the order were interlocutory in nature, as they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties or the real matters in dispute.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, as appeals from interlocutory orders lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellant appealed an order confirming emergency orders issued by the municipality's Chief Building Official under the Building Code Act, which required the appellant to pay the costs of terminating an immediate danger posed by an exposed wall.

The appellant argued the application judge failed to consider equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not raised the issue of equitable set-off before the application judge and it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the new argument on appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm after shooting the victim in the leg.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the victim's eyewitness identification and that several counts should be stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The Court of Appeal stayed five counts on consent based on Kienapple.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the trial judge properly instructed himself on the dangers of eyewitness identification and reasonably relied on corroborating circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and a partial license plate match.

The appellant, a private informant, laid an information alleging that a police force and several officers committed seven indictable offences based on his partner's workplace grievances.

Following a pre-enquete, a justice of the peace refused to issue process on six counts due to a lack of evidence on essential elements, and the Crown stayed the seventh count.

The appellant applied for orders in lieu of mandamus and certiorari, which the application judge dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error by the justice of the peace and no flagrant impropriety in the Crown's stay of proceedings.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), had been eligible to live in a community residential setting since 2014 but remained in forensic custody due to a lack of funded supportive housing.

He brought a Charter application arguing his continued detention violated his section 7 liberty rights.

The Ontario Review Board dismissed the application, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to grant a funding remedy and that the proper parties were not present.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board had broad inquisitorial powers and jurisdiction to grant the remedy.

The Court held that the appellant's continued detention due solely to a lack of funding was arbitrary and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The government was ordered to address the appellant's accommodation at his next scheduled annual review.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The respondents were awarded costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant was convicted of ten commercial fraud and fraud-related offences and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, a restitution order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

He appealed his convictions, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and unreasonable trial delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

He also sought leave to appeal his sentence, challenging the admission of forensic accounting reports and the fitness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, no s. 11(b) breach, and no error in the sentence.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code pending his re-trial on terrorism charges.

Before the terms of release were finalized, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the applicant's convictions, resulting in him serving a life sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the s. 680 application as moot, noting that any future application for release must be brought under s. 679 for bail pending appeal.

A publication ban under s. 517 was also lifted.

The respondents moved for an order under r. 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure granting them leave to examine the appellants' former lawyer regarding communications relating to the appeals.

The appellants had sought leave to file Supplementary Notices of Appeal, arguing the current appeals did not reflect their instructions to their former lawyers.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the instructions given to counsel were highly relevant to the appellants' motion and the respondents had moved promptly.

The moving party, a party under disability represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian, sought leave to appeal an order approving a $1 million settlement of her motor vehicle accident claims.

The moving party was previously made subject to an order under Rule 37.16 prohibiting her from bringing further motions or appeals without leave due to a history of frivolous proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the moving party lacked standing to act independently of her litigation guardian, and that the proposed appeal lacked reasonable grounds and would be an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondents' motion to enforce a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants, initially self-represented in a medical malpractice action, had emailed the respondents offering to dismiss the action on a without costs basis, which the respondents accepted.

The appellants later retained counsel and refused to proceed with the settlement, arguing the email was sent without the authority of all appellants and was merely an exploratory step.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that an objective reading of the correspondence established a binding agreement on the essential terms.

The Court also found no error in the motion judge's refusal to exercise his discretion to decline enforcement, as the settlement was not unconscionable.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim for fraudulent misrepresentation and inducing breach of contract arising from a residential property refinancing.

The trial judge found no evidence that the respondent made false representations or intended to procure a breach of the settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no error of law, no differential standard of scrutiny applied, and no reasonable apprehension of bias from the trial judge's questioning.

The appeal and the appeal as to costs were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents over $2 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by discharging the jury mid-trial, refusing a mistrial, mishandling evidence of CPP disability benefits, and excluding surveillance videos.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had ample basis to discharge the jury due to scheduling issues and late disclosure of an umbrella insurance policy.

While the surveillance videos should have been admitted, their exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice given their minimal probative value.