ONCA 2021

The appellant, RE/MAX Realtron Realty Inc., appealed the dismissal of its claim for commission on a property sale.

The trial judge, in a mini-trial ordered during a summary judgment motion, found that two numbered companies involved in the transaction were distinct corporate entities, and the corporate veil could not be pierced.

Consequently, the holdover clause in the initial purchase agreement did not apply to the subsequent sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding corporate distinctness, the application of the corporate veil test, or the absence of wrongdoing.

The court also upheld the substantial costs award against the appellant, noting its rejection of settlement offers.

The appellant appealed convictions for multiple drug and firearm offences, alleging the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for dismissing a Charter motion and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons adequate, noting no obligation to reconcile every inconsistency, only those relevant to the Charter application.

While conceding a misapprehension regarding the location of the appellant's wallet, the court determined it had no impact on the verdicts due to overwhelming evidence of possession, including a padlock code found in the appellant's wallet connecting him directly to contraband.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence for robbery, specifically challenging the calculation of presentence custody and credit for restrictive bail terms (Downes credit).

The parties jointly agreed that the sentencing judge was misinformed about the actual time spent in presentence custody and on restrictive bail conditions, leading to an incorrect credit calculation.

The Court of Appeal granted an additional 37 days of credit to remedy the error.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of an application for extraordinary relief (prohibition and certiorari) seeking to prevent a judge from proceeding with a remote video trial and to quash a ruling for a remote trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant's request for a full in-person trial had been accommodated.

The court declined to hear the moot appeal on public interest grounds, citing an insufficient record, the issues not being evasive of review in normal appellate process, and no evidence of a systemic problem requiring immediate resolution.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was based on the dismissal of a mid-trial application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of case management powers in dismissing the late application, nor any basis for the application to have succeeded on its merits.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the eight-year sentence imposed was entirely fit in the circumstances, despite some mitigating factors not being specifically mentioned by the trial judge.

Matthew Gibson, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, contending the risk assessment was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his compliance with medication and treatment, and stable family support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's application of the significant risk test under the Criminal Code.

The court affirmed the Board's holistic consideration of risk factors, including lack of insight into his illness and index offences, and continued cannabis use, which outweighed protective factors, concluding the conditional discharge was necessary to manage the ongoing significant risk to public safety.

The appellant father appealed an enforcement order and a restraining order made in a family law matter concerning parental alienation.

The enforcement order granted the respondent mother temporary parenting rights to facilitate the children's enrollment in an intensive therapeutic program ("Family Bridges") to address parental alienation.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the enforcement order, affirming the motion judge's jurisdiction under Family Law Rules r. 1(8) to make such orders as necessary for compliance, and finding that the orders were in the children's best interests and supported by evidence of the father's alienating conduct.

The restraining order was varied on consent to mitigate its impact on the father's livelihood.

The dissenting judge argued that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to vary a final order under r. 1(8) without following the specific procedural requirements for changing parenting orders under the Family Law Rules, Children's Law Reform Act, or Divorce Act, and that there was insufficient evidence to support such a drastic therapeutic intervention.

The appellant, Vanessa Canlas, appealed a fine of $833,238 imposed after her conviction for fraud, arguing errors in the calculation of the fine.

Specifically, she contended that the sentencing judge failed to account for cash payments made to her employees and incorrectly attributed $2.213 million as income.

She also argued that only J.V. Variety's commission from certain payments should have been included as income, with the balance deducted from misappropriated funds.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these submissions, noting that the sentencing judge had already addressed these arguments with clear and cogent reasons.

The court found no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, Kellie-Lynne Gracie, appealed her conviction for robbery.

She argued that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and made an unreasonable inference regarding her involvement in the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge, despite using the term "prima facie," did not reverse the onus of proof or improperly use the appellant's failure to testify as a make-weight.

The court concluded that the cumulative circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the trial judge's inference that the appellant was a party to the planned robbery.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He abandoned the conviction appeal.

On the sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to apply the usual 1.5 to 1 credit rate for the appellant's 152 days of pretrial custody.

The sentence appeal was granted and the sentence was reduced by 76 days.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, applied under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code for a review of a decision denying him bail pending trial.

He argued that a new release plan and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted material changes in circumstances.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no material error in the second bail judge's conclusion that the new release plan did not address the primary and secondary grounds for detention, and that the evidence regarding the pandemic's impact on the applicant was insufficient to constitute a material change.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellant's appeal and subsequently issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant conceded that the respondent was entitled to costs.

The court determined that this was not an exceptional case warranting full indemnity costs and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant, Shawn Poitras, appealed a trial decision that awarded the respondent, Natalie Burke, child and spousal support, arrears, an equalization payment, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, following an uncontested trial where the appellant's answer was struck due to repeated non-disclosure.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: denial of participation rights, insufficient scrutiny of the respondent's evidence, indefinite spousal support, and excessive costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, denying leave to file fresh evidence (failing the Palmer test), finding no unfairness regarding participation rights given the appellant's conduct, upholding the trial judge's scrutiny of evidence and spousal support award (applying Moge and SSAGs), and affirming the costs award.

This appeal arose from a summary judgment order finding a franchise agreement effectively rescinded due to deficient financial disclosure (FDD) under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The motion judge had also found two individuals to be "franchisor's associates" and jointly and severally liable.

The appellants argued the motion judge misapplied the "informed investment decision test" and erred in finding the individuals were associates and imposing joint and several liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the FDD was so deficient as to amount to no disclosure, that the informed investor test was correctly applied, and that the individuals met the definition of franchisor's associates, warranting joint and several liability.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a motion to validate late service of a statement of claim and extend the time for service in a motor vehicle accident action.

The appellant's former counsel failed to serve the defendants within the prescribed six-month period due to inadvertence.

The motion judge refused to admit a supplementary affidavit and dismissed the motion, finding insufficient explanation for delay and prejudice to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in finding insufficient explanation for delay, as it was due to counsel's inadvertence.

Furthermore, the motion judge erred in the prejudice analysis by failing to consider that the respondents' insurer had notice of the accident and the appellant's involvement, which shifted the onus to the respondents to prove prejudice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, validated the late service, and extended the time for service on unserved defendants, with a term regarding pre-judgment interest.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract claim, which was dismissed under Rule 60.12(b) for their persistent failure to comply with interlocutory orders requiring them to permit the respondents to inspect disputed limestone.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellants' position, noting their history of non-compliance and attempts to avoid the inspection order.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the claim, finding it amply justified, and denied leave to introduce fresh evidence blaming former counsel, stating such complaints are for a negligence action.

The moving party sought a stay pending his leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal noted that the moving party had previously abandoned his motion for leave to appeal from the summary conviction appeal court judge’s dismissal of his appeal, and a subsequent application to reopen that leave was denied.

Consequently, the court found there was no active proceeding that could be stayed.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of four counts of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon against his three children and wife.

He appealed both the conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the jury's verdict and rejecting claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to a lack of prejudice.

Leave to appeal the sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed as no error in principle was found.

The appellants, April Vuong and Hao Quach, appealed their convictions for large-scale fraud and their 6-year sentences.

They argued that their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed, that the trial judge erred in permitting a forensic accountant to testify as a non-expert witness, and that their sentences were unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding that the delay was justified under the Jordan transitional exceptional circumstance, that any error regarding the witness testimony was cured by the Criminal Code's proviso, and that the sentences were fit and within the appropriate range for a sophisticated Ponzi scheme.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice that had dismissed an application for certiorari.

The appellant sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge's decision to commit him to trial on a charge of first-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that there was a sufficient basis in the evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict on the charge.