R.G. Juriansz

The appellant sought leave to appeal his convictions for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and having a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

He was found asleep in the driver's seat of an inoperable vehicle stopped in a driving lane.

The trial judge acquitted him, finding no realistic risk of danger, but the summary conviction appeal judge entered convictions.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by assuming an inoperable vehicle could not create a realistic risk of danger, entitling the appeal judge to intervene.

The appellants appealed their sentences for drug trafficking to avoid deportation resulting from the retrospective application of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the first appellant's appeal on Crown consent, reducing his sentence to six months less a day as it remained fit.

The Court dismissed the second appellant's appeal, finding that the requested reduction would render his sentence unfit given his criminal record and the aggravating factors, and would circumvent parliamentary intent.

The appellant father brought a second appeal regarding a trial judgment that awarded custody of a three-year-old child to the respondent mother and allowed her to relocate to England.

The first appeal judge upheld the trial judge's decisions on custody and relocation but remitted the final order back to the trial judge to correct errors and inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred in remitting the matter, as the trial judge had properly settled the order and was functus officio.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the remitted order and restore the original trial order.

The appellant father brought a motion for interim access to his three-year-old child for a three-week block in Toronto, which was heard alongside his appeal of a custody and relocation order.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it would interfere with the child's half-day nursery school attendance and conflict with a prior access order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that fostering a meaningful relationship with the non-custodial parent and his family outweighed the importance of nursery school attendance, and noting that the prior access order restricting access to one-week blocks was a nullity.

The appellant appealed a family law trial judgment regarding the funding of an equalization payment and the trial costs award.

The trial judge had ordered the respondent to pay the $183,911.76 equalization payment out of the $277,980.48 proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that, because the parties had an equal entitlement to the sale proceeds, the trial judge erred by effectively using the appellant's own share of the funds to partially satisfy the equalization payment owed to him.

This portion of the order was set aside.

However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the trial costs award, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the parties' relative success.

The appellant was awarded $7,500 in costs for the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant.

He argued he was denied the right to be heard when the application judge denied him standing and ejected him from the courtroom, and that the judge failed to accommodate his medical illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge was entitled to refuse standing due to the appellant's failure to comply with a prior peremptory order.

The Court also held that the appellant's disruptive behaviour justified his ejection and further demonstrated his vexatious manner of conducting proceedings.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages arising from a jewelry theft after its alarm system allegedly failed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment based on an exculpatory clause in the commercial contract between the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as there was no misrepresentation inducing the contract and the parties were bound by the ordinary commercial contract.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

He had previously been granted a conditional discharge but subsequently missed appointments, was hospitalized multiple times, used drugs, and exhibited concerning behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety was reasonable and owed deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a Québec corporation, appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay proceedings brought by the respondent, an Ontario corporation, on the basis of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The dispute involved a contract for the importation and sale of chicken.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's findings that the contract was made in Ontario, the appellant carried on business in Ontario, and there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The action, related to a 2006 property purchase, was dismissed in 2011 after the appellants failed to meet a court-ordered timetable.

The motion judge found that a 14-month unexplained delay in bringing a second motion to set aside the dismissal was fatal, and that the defendants suffered actual prejudice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Reid factors and balancing of competing principles.

The appellant appealed an order from a trial management conference judge who, on her own initiative, struck his pleadings on financial issues for failure to make disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the unopposed appeal and set aside the order, finding procedural unfairness because there was no motion to strike before the judge and the parties were not given an opportunity to make submissions.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of stolen property.

The trial judge entered the stay on his own initiative when the trial Crown was 22 minutes late due to a conflicting sentencing matter in Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge was right to be displeased, a stay of proceedings was not warranted as there was no prejudice to the respondent's right to a fair trial and the integrity of the justice system was not diminished.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, arguing the verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, and failed to explain the marked departure finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehensions of evidence and ample support for the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the availability of an Aboriginal-specific treatment program.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the sentencing judge to conclude there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk the appellant posed in the community, especially given his lengthy criminal record, history of violent offences while on drugs, and the lack of supervision that would follow a long-term offender order.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court, arguing that the judge erred in inferring an agreement under s. 786(2) of the Criminal Code to regularize proceedings instituted beyond the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the judge had an adequate evidentiary foundation to infer the agreement.

The court held that the correctness of this conclusion raised a question of mixed fact and law, which cannot be appealed under s. 839(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a high school teacher, appealed her conviction and 13-month sentence for sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old student.

The trial judge found that the appellant engaged in a prolonged, sexually charged relationship with the student and had sexual intercourse with him while he was intoxicated, relying on the student's testimony, corroborating witness testimony, and telecommunications data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge did not err in treating character reference letters as evidence of the appellant's position of trust rather than as mitigating factors.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to detain him and search his vehicle, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the traffic stop under the Highway Traffic Act was lawful, even with a dual purpose of intelligence gathering.

The officer was justified in asking the appellant to step out of the vehicle to verify his identity, at which point the drugs were in plain view.

The mother appealed a 2011 order finding her in contempt and a 2013 order reversing custody of the parties' three children to the father and limiting her access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The contempt finding was set aside because the interim orders allegedly breached had been superseded by Minutes of Settlement.

The court found the trial judge erred in relying on the Child and Family Services Act and parens patriae jurisdiction, but upheld the decision to reverse custody based on the trial judge's finding of emotional abuse by the mother.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by not setting a fixed timeframe for an access review.

The court ordered a review of access arrangements and increased the mother's access in the interim.

Costs payable by the mother for the proceedings below were reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their main action and striking their defence to a counterclaim for delay and failure to comply with undertakings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision based on the record before him.

However, the appellants brought a motion to file fresh evidence consisting of the previously unproduced financial documents.

Although the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence requirement, the Court admitted it because it was highly relevant to the ongoing defamation counterclaim.

The appeal was allowed, the pleadings were restored, and the action was returned to the trial list, with costs awarded to the respondent due to the appellants' delay.

The appellant purchased rims and tires for his vehicle, financed by the respondent.

The respondent registered a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA) and attempted to seize the vehicle when the appellant defaulted.

The application judge declared the respondent was entitled to the lien.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the vendor never possessed or repaired the vehicle, meaning no possessory lien arose that could be converted to a non-possessory lien or assigned to the respondent.

The court also held that RSLA liens arise by statute, not contract, and the deemed possession provision in s. 3(4) did not apply.

The appeal was allowed and the lien declared invalid.