ONCA 2020

The appellant, a party under disability with the Public Guardian and Trustee appointed as his litigation guardian, filed a Notice of Appeal challenging a case management judge's order that stayed his action as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The respondents requested an order under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found the Notice of Appeal to be largely unintelligible and seeking relief the court could not grant, demonstrating the appellant's incapacity to represent himself.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous on its face.

The moving party sought to set aside an order requiring it to post $100,000 each in security for costs for the responding parties on an appeal.

The motion judge had found the appeal had a low prospect of success and the moving party failed to prove it lacked access to funds despite apparent impecuniosity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's discretionary order and refusing to admit fresh evidence that was available at the time of the original motion.

The appellant appealed the 16-year period of parole ineligibility imposed for second degree murder.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to explain the high-end period and improperly treated the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge adequately explained his decision and properly used the absence of remorse to distinguish the case from precedent, rather than as an aggravating factor.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed sentences totaling 32 months and a forfeiture order for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marijuana and cocaine.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by giving no weight to the guilty plea and the absence of a commercial motive.

The court reduced the sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking to 28 months, reduced the sentence for possession of marijuana to 10 days concurrent, and set aside the forfeiture order of $320.00 as there was no finding it was drug-related.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference involving his step-daughter.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based primarily on the complainant's credibility.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed several errors in assessing credibility, including failing to adequately address the complainant's motive to fabricate, failing to resolve material inconsistencies in the evidence, improperly using a prior consistent statement to bolster the complainant's credibility, and failing to apply the W.(D.) principles to determine if the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of probation, arguing that he did not make the phone call that led to the charges.

At the outset of the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which was refused as the matter was peremptory and he had ample time to prepare.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility regarding the identity of the caller.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and indignity to human remains after confessing to undercover officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the confession was obtained through police coercion amounting to an abuse of process under the Hart framework.

He also appealed his 17-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the police conduct was not coercive and the appellant's will was not overborne.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the parole ineligibility period was not demonstrably unfit given the horrific nature of the crimes and the aggravating factors.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, mischief, and sexual assault against his former domestic partner.

The complainant had recanted her allegations prior to trial and testified for the Crown, adopting her recantation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in finding the actus reus of sexual assault was proven based on the complainant's initial statement to police.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) principles, his assessment of the complainant's motive to fabricate, or his decision to allow the Crown latitude in cross-examining the complainant on her prior statement.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the Crown's key witness, his former girlfriend.

The appellant contended the trial judge improperly relied on her lack of embellishment and impermissibly used the co-accused's evidence for corroboration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not use the lack of embellishment to enhance credibility and properly relied on elements of the co-accused's trial testimony to corroborate the witness's evidence.

The appellant law firm appealed the quantum of legal fees approved by the application judge in a settlement for a plaintiff under a disability.

The application judge had reduced the firm's contingency fee from approximately $180,000 to $60,000, noting the lack of complexity, the absence of risk, and the disparity between the docketed time and the requested fee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's articulation or application of the relevant factors for fixing costs for a party under a disability.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent 24 months' notice and bonus entitlements for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the employment contract, resignation, and release in the context of a commercial share sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the motion judge's contractual interpretation, upholding the finding that the release of ESA rights was void, and affirming the 24-month notice period and bonus entitlement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment enforcing a loan agreement and personal guarantees, arguing they were entitled to a set-off due to the respondent's breach of related investment and commercial agreements.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence of the respondent's sales to prove a breach of the commercial agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court also dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the investment agreement had not been orally amended and that the commercial agreement was not a live issue at trial.

The appellant sought an adjournment of his appeal from an order declaring him a vexatious litigant, citing a pending Superior Court application to appoint a guardian for his property and care.

Despite concerns about delay and a previous dismissal of a litigation guardian application, the Court of Appeal granted a brief 60-day adjournment due to newly authored psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's capacity.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breaching a share purchase agreement, arguing the respondents misrepresented the condition of the equipment.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for contribution and indemnity against a third-party corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement contained no misrepresentation regarding the equipment.

The cross-appeal was allowed and remitted to the motion judge because no reasons were provided for dismissing the third-party claim.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding prospective and retroactive spousal and child support, as well as the trial costs award.

The trial judge had imputed income to the respondent due to income fluctuations and denied retroactive support because the appellant's bankruptcy had relieved her of the tax debt that caused her financial hardship.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant property owner appealed a decision granting the respondent municipality a prescriptive easement for a watermain installed on the property in 1979-1980.

The appellant argued the municipality's use was not open, that the burden of proof regarding permission was reversed, and that public authorities with expropriation powers cannot acquire prescriptive easements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably inferred the owners had actual or imputed knowledge of the watermain, the lack of evidence of permission rendered any burden of proof issue moot, and there is no legal bar preventing municipalities from acquiring prescriptive easements.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation, arising from incidents involving his former girlfriend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions reasonable and supported by strong circumstantial evidence, including text messages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to correct a Kienapple error, setting aside a duplicative conviction for uttering threats based on the same evidence.

The Court also set aside the victim surcharges as unconstitutional.

The defendant in a personal injury action brought a motion to stay an order striking out the parties' jury notices pending her appeal.

The trial was scheduled to proceed before a judge alone due to COVID-19 pandemic delays affecting civil jury trials.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the motion judge found that the appeal lacked merit as the order was likely interlocutory, the defendant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured proceeding with the long-delayed trial.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, brought a motion within his appeal for an order directing investigating officers and a forensic scientist to attend for cross-examination.

He sought to support a fresh evidence application regarding DNA records, alleging that the National DNA Data Bank possessed undisclosed original DNA profile data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable possibility that further relevant material existed, as required by the Trotta and Chaplin tests.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a motion.

Costs were fixed and awarded to the responding party in the amount of $768.40, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.