Paul S. Rouleau

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that evidence of a handgun and cocaine discovered during a search incident to arrest should have been excluded.

The appellant claimed he was unlawfully detained when police questioned him after observing him riding a bicycle on the sidewalk and fleeing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that there was no psychological detention.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if the arrest lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds, the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter because the officers acted in good faith, the search was minimally intrusive, and the offences were serious.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to consider mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge's statement that there were no mitigating factors meant he had considered and rejected them.

Given the young age of the victim, the fact of penetration, and the threat of violence, the sentence was deemed fit, even having regard to the totality principle.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

The applicant, sought by the United States for the attempted murder of a police officer in 1969, applied for judicial interim release pending his extradition appeal and the Minister's surrender decision.

The applicant had previously breached bail twice in the US and lived in Canada under a false identity for 30 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that despite a comprehensive supervision plan, the applicant posed a significant flight risk that was not adequately mitigated.

The appellants, Ontario residents, appealed a decision staying their action against a New Orleans restaurant owner for a slip and fall injury sustained while vacationing in Louisiana.

The motion judge found that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, applying the real and substantial connection test and finding that requiring a foreign restaurant owner to defend in the customer's home jurisdiction would impose an unreasonable burden.

The appellant, holding a perfected general security agreement over the assets of a company in receivership, appealed a motion judge's decision granting priority over three injection molding machines to the unpaid supplier.

The supplier had delivered the machines but retained title pending payment and electrical safety certification, which had not yet been obtained.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that because the conditions of sale were not met, the debtor had not acquired any rights in the machines to which the appellant's security interest could attach under the Personal Property Security Act.

The appellant mortgagor appealed an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation and dismissing his motion to determine the redemption amount for mortgages on his property.

The property had already been sold by the respondent mortgagee under a power of sale before the motion was heard.

At the hearing, the appellant orally requested that the sale be set aside.

The motion judge refused, noting the purchaser was not a party and the relief was not sought in the notice of motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that any challenge to the sale required proper pleadings and notice to the purchaser.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his motion to amend his statement of defence to withdraw an admission.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge applied the incorrect legal standard, holding the appellant to the pre-Antipas standard rather than the reformulated three-part test.

The appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the change of position, stating he only realized the plaintiff had not advanced the mortgage funds upon reading the summary judgment materials.

The Court held that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue and that there was no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was permitted to amend his pleadings.

The mother appealed a trial judgment ordering shared parenting (joint custody) and equal access time.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother sole custody because the parents had a complete communication breakdown and could not cooperate, making joint custody inappropriate.

However, the court upheld the equal access time and child support orders, finding that equal time with both parents remained in the children's best interests.

The applicants sought to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court dismissing their application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that under section 6(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the matter was properly decided by the Divisional Court and could not be reconstituted as a Rule 14 application before a Superior Court judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision characterizing a letter of agreement as an absolute and unconditional sale and transfer of shares.

The appellant argued the arrangement created a security interest subject to the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to conclude on the record that the transaction was an absolute sale.

The developer sought a declaration that it did not require a permit from the Minister of Transportation under s. 38(2)(f) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to proceed with the residential phase of a mixed-use development located near a controlled-access highway.

The application judge granted the declaration.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the order, finding that the residential phase could not be considered in isolation from the commercial phase, which had already been subjected to permit conditions requiring permits for all future phases.

The Court declared that a permit was required.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring a road passing through the respondents' property to be an access road under the Road Access Act, but restricting its use and denying costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the declaration and the denial of their request to close the road.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the road was an access road but found no statutory basis for restricting its use to specific parties or purposes.

The Court also found the trial judge erred by failing to determine whether parties entitled to notice had a legal right to use the road before denying the closure request under s. 3(1)(b).

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered regarding the road closure and stayed damage claims.

The appellants were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

At the preliminary inquiry, the judge discharged the appellants.

On an application for certiorari, the reviewing judge quashed the discharges and committed the appellants for trial, finding the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of jurisdictional error but allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the committal for trial and remitting the matter to the preliminary inquiry judge for further consideration.

The appellants appealed an order regarding their right to renew a mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that not being in default was a condition precedent to the privilege to renew.

As the mortgage was and remained in default, the appellants could not renew it.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice and sought further disclosure.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's disposition and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and failure to comply with a probation order, as well as his sentence of seventeen months' imprisonment.

The appeal raised multiple issues, including the trial judge's decision to identify jurors by number, the admission of evidence regarding gang rivalry, the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning for an unsavoury witness, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and the theory of the defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that the verdict was reasonable and the sentence was fit.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting joint custody of the children to the father and determining child support issues.

She argued the trial judge erred in awarding joint custody, failing to impute higher income to the father, and calculating section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's best interests analysis or financial determinations.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed, as the trial judge had remained seized of the custody issue for one year and was better positioned to address new complaints.

The appellant appealed a judgment after his answer had been struck and he was barred from participating in the proceedings due to non-compliance with court orders.

He argued that the respondent's counsel breached a duty of candour and that the motion judge failed to test the merits of his struck answer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of the duty of candour and concluding that the motion judge properly considered the claim on the merits despite the struck pleadings.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding a confidentiality regime in Advocis disciplinary proceedings.

The Court of Appeal varied the order to hold the parties to their undertaking to be bound by the confidentiality regime, subject to specific exclusions defined in their agreement.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the appellants.

The respondent pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a $5,000 fine.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the fine manifestly unfit and holding that the sentencing judge misunderstood the principles of conditional sentencing and failed to justify departing from the joint submission.

The sentence was varied to add an 18-month conditional sentence to the fine.