ONCA 2020

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision upholding his conviction for care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence and admitting his statement to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error by the summary conviction appeal judge and concluding the case lacked significance to the administration of justice.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for theft and failure to comply with probation, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention in a secure forensic unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he represented a significant risk to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record amply supported the Board's conclusion given the appellant's serious acquired brain injury, psychiatric issues, and history of violence and aggression.

The self-represented applicant moved to set aside a previous decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his family law appeal, seeking a new hearing under Rules 37.14 and 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that Rule 37.14 had no application and that the authority to reconsider a decision under Rule 59.06 is exercised sparingly.

The applicant's arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the correctness of the appeal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the proper route to contest the decision was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for breach of contract and solicitor's negligence against their former counsel, Gardiner Roberts LLP.

The appellants alleged errors in judgment, failure to properly advise, and failure to consider costs during the firm's representation of them in a prior action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the firm communicated steps to the appellants, advised them of risks, and did not breach the standard of care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pled guilty to multiple offences, including robbery and break and enter, committed during a drug-fuelled rampage.

He was sentenced to four and one-half years' imprisonment and ordered to pay $15,698.34 in restitution.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the sentencing judge failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay and the impact of the orders on his rehabilitation.

The appeal was allowed and the restitution orders were set aside.

The appellant, an independent agent for the respondent financial services company, appealed the dismissal of his application for an order requiring the respondent to pay service commissions.

The respondent had changed its policy to make service commissions dependent on new sales performance.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the contract permitted the respondent to modify pay arrangements and impose minimum performance standards upon notice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to eight years.

He appealed, arguing that the warrantless search of the vehicle he was a passenger in, the seizure of his jacket, and the search of the jacket violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the search and seizure were not lawfully incidental to his arrest on an outstanding warrant.

Because the record was insufficient to conduct a proper s. 24(2) analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence, the court allowed the appeal and directed a new trial.

The respondent sued the appellants for constructive dismissal.

During a summary judgment motion, the appellants sought production of draft affidavits, which the motion judge dismissed as privileged, while also prohibiting further examinations without leave.

The appellants appealed these orders to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the orders were interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, quashed the appeal, and directed the appellants to seek leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

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

The appellant was ordered to pay costs of the appeal to the respondent in the fixed amount of $16,800.00, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant was convicted of producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered a large grow operation on his leased farmland.

The police had unintentionally trespassed on the leased land while investigating, which the trial judge found breached s. 8 of the Charter.

The trial judge admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the Grant framework.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by not considering the impact of the subsequent searches of the outbuildings and residence.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the Court excluded the evidence found in the residence due to the high expectation of privacy, but admitted the evidence from the fields and outbuildings.

As the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm and drug offences and his sentence of 7.5 years.

He argued the trial judge erred in drawing adverse inferences about his knowledge of the contraband found in his vehicle, in assessing police testimony, and in admitting the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter despite a s. 8 breach.

He also sought a sentence reduction due to the Charter breach and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning or Charter analysis.

However, the court set aside the $1,600 victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal on summary judgment of his claims against the Attorney General of Canada and the Ottawa Police Services Board for negligent investigation and harassment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis in evidence or law to interfere with the motion judge's comprehensive reasons and fact-finding powers.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to each respondent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity under s. 276 and in admitting the deceased complainant's preliminary inquiry testimony under s. 715.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's rulings, noting the s. 276 application was based on an improper foundation of questions asked in violation of the section at the preliminary inquiry.

The court also upheld the admission of the preliminary inquiry testimony and the trial judge's credibility assessments, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving a sex trade worker.

He argued that he was denied access to counsel upon arrest, that the trial judge did not take his case seriously, that the complainants were lying, and that the sexual activity was consensual.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis for the right to counsel claim and no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the sexual activity, which began as consensual, evolved into a non-consensual sexual assault when the appellant refused to use a condom and used a boxcutter to stroke the complainant's neck.

The young person appealed his convictions for multiple swatting incidents, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The net delay was approximately three years, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the delay was justified by the exceptional circumstance of the case's complexity, which involved highly technical computer forensic evidence, voluminous disclosure, and multiple jurisdictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual and physical assaults against his former common-law spouse and her children.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the primary complainant, improperly used his criminal record, failed to resolve material inconsistencies, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and misapplied the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of legal principles.

The parties were involved in multiple actions concerning their respective security businesses.

In one action, the motion judge struck the defendant's counterclaim as an abuse of process because it duplicated a counterclaim in another action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by failing to consider the context of the litigation, noting the plaintiff initiated the multiple proceedings.

A second appeal by the plaintiff from an order refusing to strike a counterclaim in another action was quashed as the order was interlocutory and the appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed his convictions for accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography.

The child pornography was found on his computer, but he argued that other people had access to it.

The trial judge found that the only reasonable inference on the circumstantial evidence was that the appellant had control over his computer and committed the offences.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Villaroman test and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision finding it had not validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease and denying relief from forfeiture.

The tenant argued the landlord waived the requirement for written notice of renewal through email negotiations about rent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the landlord did not waive strict compliance with the renewal provision and that the tenant's conduct—including hedging its bets on renewal and paying rent late—did not warrant equitable relief from forfeiture.

Mark Couper appealed a judgment ordering him to pay legal fees and disbursements to Rueters LLP.

The appeal was based on three grounds: reasonable apprehension of bias by the applications judge, an alleged error in finding Rueters had good reason to withdraw as counsel without court approval, and the invalidity of a compromise compensation agreement (CCA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that Rueters had good reason to withdraw (client caused breakdown, no prejudice, no court approval needed as client agreed), and that the CCA was valid and enforceable (new issue not raised below, and found fair and reasonable).