Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault and sexual assault, arguing denial of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to bring a s. 11(b) application.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's refusal to hear the late s. 11(b) application, noting it was a tactical decision and had been expressly abandoned by counsel with the appellant's awareness.

The court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel, as the decision not to bring the application was informed and reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant on a global count of sexual exploitation but acquitted on two specific counts of sexual exploitation and sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in relying on the Crown's case to reject his evidence without sufficient reasoned basis and failed to resolve material inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were considered and reasoned, adequately addressing credibility and reliability, and that alleged inconsistencies were either not material or properly resolved.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its August 15, 2024 decision.

The parties resolved the costs of the appeal and underlying prejudgment interest motions by consent.

The respondent agreed to pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $60,000 for appeal and motion costs.

6044402 NB Ltd. ("604") brought a motion to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration of a previous decision (Benzacar v. Terk, 2023 ONCA 773) concerning its obligations in a garnishment proceeding. 604 sought to recalculate the amount payable to the sheriff, arguing for a lower sum based on new mathematical arguments.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding no arguable merit in the request, that it was an attempt to reargue matters already in issue during the original appeal, and that the interests of finality strongly favoured rejection, especially given 604's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The moving party, Fariborz Tavana, on behalf of Master Tech Inc., sought to set aside an order dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The underlying appeal related to a costs order and the dismissal of an action.

The Court of Appeal identified several impediments, including the dissolution of Master Tech Inc., Mr. Tavana's lack of authority to act for the corporation, and the absence of any reviewable error in the prior decision.

The court found no arguable merit to the proposed appeal and a consistent pattern of delay.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where the appeal was allowed in part and the cross-appeal was also allowed.

The appellant Estate succeeded against one of three respondents, while respondent D.O. was completely successful on the cross-appeal, though one aspect was conceded and the other involved a lesser amount.

Given the divided success, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The appellant, convicted of arson and other charges, appealed his conviction on two grounds: alleged legal and factual errors by the trial judge and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's comprehensive findings in an overwhelming circumstantial case, and concluding that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the required threshold of incompetence.

The appellants were convicted of various drug-related offences following a large-scale police investigation involving wiretaps, tracking warrants, and search warrants.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the application judge erred in dismissing their pre-trial Garofoli applications challenging the constitutionality of the searches and interceptions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the application judge's assessment of the wiretap authorizations, the reliance on confidential informants, the refusal to excise certain information from the warrants, and the determinations regarding reasonable expectations of privacy in condominium units and common areas.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a forensic mental health facility with community privileges, rather than granting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Board denied the conditional discharge due to public safety concerns, emphasizing the need for swift intervention in case of mental state decompensation, despite the appellant's recent stability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court deferred to the Board's expert opinion, supported by the appellant's psychiatrist, that a detention order was necessary to ensure public protection by allowing intervention before the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act were met, which conditional discharge mechanisms might not adequately provide.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with house arrest, followed by three years of probation, imposed on the respondent for trafficking fentanyl.

The respondent, an addict, had sold a small quantity of fentanyl to a friend who subsequently died.

The Crown argued the sentence was demonstrably unfit, disproportionate, and failed to meet objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered significant mitigating factors, including the respondent's extraordinary rehabilitation efforts, early guilty plea, remorse, and strict pre-trial bail conditions, concluding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit despite the gravity of the offence.

The appellant was convicted of drug and firearm offences.

He appealed his conviction, arguing that the search warrant used to obtain evidence was improperly issued.

Specifically, he contended that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading and that tips from confidential informants (CIs) and an anonymous caller were not sufficiently compelling, credible, or corroborated to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for reviewing search warrants and the `Debot` criteria for assessing CI reliability.

The court concluded that the issuing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant, even if certain information in the ITO were excised.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal was advised that the trial, which addressed equalization, child support, and spousal support, had recently concluded but the trial reasons for decision had not yet been released.

The appellant argued that the appeal should not proceed without these reasons, a position the respondent's counsel acknowledged as arguably premature.

Given the significance of equalization and the issues before the panel, the Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal until after the trial reasons are released.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the attendance.

The appellant, Wasif Rashidi, appealed a summary judgment order awarding damages to M.T. Johnstone Construction Ltd. for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellant failed to close on a property purchase and argued he was orally promised an assignment, which was not honoured, and that the respondent failed to mitigate damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the realtor was the appellant's agent, the assignment conditions were not met, and the respondent had reasonably mitigated damages.

The court also rejected arguments of economic frustration and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs and a sealing order following its dismissal of the appellant's Charter challenge to a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs for both the appeal and the fresh evidence motions, citing divided success on the appeal and reasonable conduct regarding the fresh evidence motions.

Regarding the sealing order for fresh evidence, the court dismissed the appellant's request for a full sealing order, instead ordering limited redactions to the CRA final audit, consistent with a prior Superior Court order, to balance the open court principle with privacy and safety concerns, particularly given allegations of government wrongdoing.

The appellants were convicted of procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and advertising sexual services.

At trial, the judge applied section 276 of the Criminal Code to restrict the appellants from cross-examining the complainant about her prior work in the sex trade.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that section 276 does not apply categorically to sexual services and human trafficking offences, and that the trial judge erred in applying it to restrict relevant cross-examination.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeals in respect of the sexual services offences, and ordered a new trial.

An appeal against a conviction for trafficking MDMA was dismissed.

The appellant, Biao Zhou, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The appeal raised multiple grounds, including errors in jury selection, a jury question, loss of juror notes, closing arguments, and jury instructions on post-offence conduct and consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors by the trial judge.

The court addressed the trial judge's procedural error in allocating peremptory challenges, applying the curative proviso, and upheld decisions regarding juror impartiality and trial management.

The appellant, Clifton Vassel, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable regarding planning and deliberation, and that the jury instructions on this element were flawed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude planning and deliberation, and that the trial judge's instructions adequately outlined the relevant evidence, even if not exhaustive.

The appellant, Manjunath C. Kuppa, appealed an order striking his pleadings (and those of two other respondents) due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and non-disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings was an appropriate remedy in these exceptional circumstances, consistent with the Family Law Rules' objective of dealing with cases justly, especially when lesser remedies had proven futile.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The appellant, convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting 14 women and designated a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence, appealed his convictions on three counts and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

The court found no reviewable error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, the use of similar fact evidence (despite a procedural oversight which was deemed harmless), or the determination that a determinate sentence would not adequately protect the public given the appellant's high risk of reoffending due to antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021, arguing it was ultra vires Ontario and infringed their rights to free expression and equality under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Act, finding its dominant purpose was to affirm and commemorate the Tamil-Ontarian community's experience, which falls within Ontario's power over local matters under s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court also dismissed the Charter claims, concluding the Act does not suppress expression or draw a discriminatory distinction against Sinhala-Buddhists.