Paul S. Rouleau

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision that allowed the Crown's appeal and remitted the matter for a new trial.

The applicant had originally been acquitted of assaulting a peace officer and breach of recognizance.

The summary conviction appeal judge found a misapprehension of evidence central to the trial decision.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding no exceptional circumstances or matters of general importance to justify a second-level appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder and his sentence of 30 months' imprisonment after time served.

During a physical confrontation, the appellant slashed the complainant's neck with a 12-inch bread knife.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in finding the specific intent to kill and in rejecting his claims of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on intent and the unavailability of self-defence were firmly grounded in the evidence, and the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appellant sued her former family law solicitor for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a matrimonial settlement.

At trial, the solicitor admitted negligence concerning the treatment of a cottage as a matrimonial home and advice on spousal support, resulting in a damages award.

On appeal, the appellant argued the negligence permeated the entire settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal but found the trial judge erred in setting the commencement date for spousal support damages by double-counting a line of credit debt.

The Court adjusted the commencement date, increasing the spousal support damages by $6,210.

The appellants brought an action seeking millions of dollars against the respondent, following a prior Small Claims Court action where they recovered approximately $6,000.

The motion judge dismissed the second action on the basis of res judicata, finding that both claims arose out of the same business relationship and the claims could have been brought in the first action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting the appellants' argument that fairness considerations should prevent the application of res judicata.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment expunging a mortgage and finding the appellant wife complicit in a fraudulent mortgage transaction structured by her husband, a former solicitor.

The appellants argued there was no evidence to support the finding of complicity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record contained evidence that the appellant wife prepared the mortgage, signed the direction to register it, and gave instructions for its enforcement despite knowing no debt was owed.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that no legal fees were owed to the husband.

The appellant sought to be appointed as her mother's guardian and applied to rescind a Power of Attorney for personal care made in favour of her brother.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the mother had capacity, and also dismissed the appellant's motion for an adjournment to file further material and cross-examine an affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the application judge's discretionary refusal of the adjournment, as the appellant had sufficient time to serve responding material and provided no explanation for why an adjournment was required.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they were not 'farmers' under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was inadequate evidence to show the appellants were engaged in farming for commercial purposes.

The Court also rejected the argument that an earlier motion for security for costs rendered the issue res judicata.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change a consent order for spousal support.

He argued that his son moving into his residence and his deteriorating financial position constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's move was reasonably foreseeable, the appellant's income had actually increased, and he was saving on child support.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, seeking to set aside her guilty plea.

She argued her trial counsel provided ineffective representation and that her plea was not voluntary or informed due to threats from her co-accused and a lack of understanding of the immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice from the alleged ineffective assistance and concluding the plea was both informed regarding deportation risks and voluntary, as the allegations of threats were not credible.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of trust and theft arising from his unilateral sale of real estate held in trust for himself and his business partners, and his taking of chattels from the property.

The trial judge found the appellant knew he was not entitled to deal with the property unilaterally and rejected his defence of reliance on legal advice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and sufficient to ground the convictions.

The plaintiff brought a Small Claims Court action against a court-appointed family law assessor, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis of expert witness immunity and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court overturned the decision, finding that the motion judge erred by making findings of fact on a summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while summary judgment motions are not available under the Small Claims Court Rules, the motion judge's decision was sustainable under rule 12.02 as a motion to strike a claim that is a waste of time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellants, who were each found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) on consent, appealed their verdicts.

They argued that the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to mandate an inquiry into whether an accused's consent to an NCRMD finding is voluntary and informed, similar to the inquiry required for guilty pleas under section 606(1.1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Charter challenges, finding no violation of fundamental justice or equality rights.

The Court also dismissed the appellants' individual arguments regarding the reasonableness of their verdicts, fitness to stand trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and imposing terms on a discontinuing plaintiff.

The appellants abandoned the pleading argument after delivering a revised claim.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by prematurely requiring the discontinuing plaintiff to deliver an affidavit of documents and submit to discovery before pleadings were closed, setting aside those terms.

The Court also found the motion judge's $45,000 costs award excessive and varied it to $10,000.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that although the request for dismissal should have been made on notice, the outcome would not have been different.

The appellant failed to comply with two orders designed to expedite the case and failed to adequately explain the delay.

The respondent suffered prejudice due to a certificate of pending litigation and subsequent orders.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim for professional negligence and breach of contract against the respondent accounting firm.

The motion judge dismissed the counterclaim on a summary judgment motion because the appellant failed to provide direct evidence, relying instead on an affidavit based on information and belief.

The respondent cross-appealed the motion judge's finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the timing of payment of its fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the fees and granting summary judgment to the respondent.

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

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs fixed at $5,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement based on a consent filed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay trial costs of $97,000 to one appellant, and $250,000 plus GST and disbursements to the other appellants.

The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of aggravated assault after throwing a beer bottle and mug at the complainant in a bar.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 12-month sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his self-defence claim and improperly used the co-accused's out-of-court statement against him.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in her treatment of the co-accused's statement, the error caused no harm and the verdict would have been the same.

The curative proviso was applied, and the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The respondents, estate trustees, sought to be removed due to personal hardship and a conflict of interest arising from a mortgage they registered against the estate's sole asset to cover litigation costs.

The motion judge removed them without appointing a replacement or providing for the estate's administration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while a court has inherent equitable jurisdiction to remove a sole trustee without appointing a replacement, it must ensure the orderly administration of the estate.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court to reconsider the removal application alongside a motion for directions.