Patrick J. Monahan

The appellant, Harvin Fraser, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding whether the complainant’s sexual interaction with the appellant included oral sex as well as sexual intercourse.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge’s credibility and reliability findings.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to re-open her application for leave to appeal a 2015 summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

This was her third such application, each raising similar Charter arguments previously dismissed by the courts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the application as entirely without merit.

The court further prohibited Ms. Hart from filing any further documents regarding her 2015 conviction without written permission from a judge of the court.

The appellant, John Dunford, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages against the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.

Dunford alleged that Dr. James E. Anderson, who was involved with the Cool School program, sexually abused him and that the hospital was vicariously liable.

The trial judge found that Dr. Anderson committed the tort of sexual battery but concluded the hospital was not vicariously liable due to insufficient closeness in the relationship.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings, holding that the correct legal test was applied and that the policy rationales for vicarious liability were properly considered.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the constitutionality of two sentencing provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) relating to deferred custody and supervision orders (DCSOs): ss. 42(2)(p) and 42(5)(a).

The sentencing judge had found these provisions unconstitutional and imposed a DCSO sentence not otherwise available.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in her constitutional analysis and in failing to apply the impugned provisions and other relevant sections of the YCJA.

The Court substituted a sentence of 18 months’ probation and a 100-hour community service order, with credit for time served under the DCSO.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion by Alyange Holdings Inc. to strike portions of the responding parties’ Appeal Book and Compendium that were not before the motion judge.

The court held that the appeal record must be limited to evidence before the lower court, rejecting the respondents’ argument that documents from an earlier application could be included.

The court emphasized the principles of finality and fairness, and awarded costs to the moving party.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal from a trial judgment awarding $160,000 to the respondent for loans that were not repaid.

The trial judge’s decision was based on unjust enrichment, as there was no agreement on the term or interest rate of the loans.

The Court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to allow the appellants to withdraw deemed admissions or to introduce late evidence, finding no procedural unfairness.

The Court also found no error in the exclusion of a late-proposed witness and in the trial judge’s unjust enrichment analysis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion for a panel review of a motion judge’s decision denying an extension of time to perfect an appeal in a family law matter.

The panel found no error in the motion judge’s exercise of discretion, holding that the correct legal principles were applied and the result was reasonable.

The appellant’s arguments regarding the respondent’s opposition to the motion were rejected based on the record.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Sa Yan and Royal LePage Signature Realty regarding the return of a $60,000 deposit following the termination of an assignment of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that the respondents, Christine Yui and Michelle Yui, properly exercised a lawyer approval condition to terminate the agreement and were entitled to the return of their deposit.

The court also declined to vary the order to include pre- and post-judgment interest, as the respondents had not brought a cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement after the appellant, Boshra Mikhail, abandoned his appeal less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The court awarded the respondent, Eman Mikhail, costs of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, after considering written submissions from both parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The appellant, S.M., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding the complainant’s credibility and motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence or in her reasons, holding that the findings were open to her on the record and that the reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Sami Kazi, appealed the October 24, 2024 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him Not Criminally Responsible and ordered his detention with conditions.

After a subsequent Board hearing in January 2025 resulted in a new disposition, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot, as the original disposition was no longer operative.

The court found no live controversy remained and declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal, noting the issues were fact-specific and overtaken by events.

The appellant, Jomal Brown, appealed his convictions for possession of various illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of trafficking, and several firearm offences.

The appeal also challenged the application judge’s dismissal of his Charter application, which was denied on the basis that Brown had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit where the items were seized.

During appeal preparation, Crown counsel identified a trial fairness issue: the Crown had taken inconsistent positions regarding Brown’s residence in the unit at different stages of the proceedings.

With the consent of both parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and Charter ruling, and ordered a new trial on all issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed J.C.'s appeal in part, setting aside his designation as a dangerous offender and substituting a designation as a long-term offender, while upholding the determinate sentence and 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO).

The court found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider intractability at the designation stage, as required by R. v. Boutilier, but found no reviewable error in the trial judge’s findings regarding the patterns of behaviour or assessment of the criminal record.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to reopen her application for leave to appeal a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content over 80mg per 100ml.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed her application, finding that the Charter arguments and evidence she sought to introduce were neither fresh nor novel, as they had already been considered in previous proceedings.

The court held that there was no merit to the application and declined to consider its jurisdiction to reopen a decision not to reopen a dismissal of a leave to appeal application.

The appellant, Haytham Elzayat, moved under section 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of Roberts J.A. denying his request to include a transcript of oral argument from the court below in his appeal materials.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the exercise of discretion by Roberts J.A., holding that the transcript was not necessary or relevant for the fair hearing of the appeal.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Manpreet Dhaliwal’s appeal from the trial decision and costs order in her family and civil actions against Hardeep Singh Nijher and his family.

The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial judge’s findings regarding property equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The trial judge’s credibility findings against the appellant were upheld, and the court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The appellant, Zaafir Ahmed Munir, appealed a decision upholding the Town of Milton’s short-term rental bylaw and related enforcement actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Town had authority under the Municipal Act to enact the bylaw, that there was no conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the appellant’s Charter rights were not infringed.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, Michael Westcott, appealed his sentence on the basis that it significantly exceeded the sentence requested by the Crown.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to provide adequate notice that she was considering a sentence higher than the Crown’s request, as required by R. v. Nahanee.

However, the Court found no error in principle in the judge’s application of the totality principle or her consideration of harsh pretrial custody conditions.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court clarifying the distinction between joint submissions and contested sentencing hearings.