R.G. Juriansz

The appellant was originally charged with indictable offences and elected trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice.

On the trial date, the Crown re-elected to proceed by summary conviction, and the appellant pleaded guilty before the Superior Court judge.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Crown had the authority to re-elect the mode of proceeding, the Superior Court of Justice is not a summary conviction court and lacked jurisdiction to take the guilty pleas and impose sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence and pleas were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its third party claim against the estate of a deceased solicitor for professional negligence.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim as time-barred under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the limitation period should be tolled by the doctrines of fraudulent concealment or special circumstances.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the solicitor's conduct, while negligent, was not unconscionable, precluding the application of fraudulent concealment.

The Court also held that the doctrine of special circumstances does not permit a party to commence a third party claim after the limitation period has expired.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sued a car dealership and its employees for breach of contract, negligence, and conspiracy regarding a brake replacement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim, finding no evidence to support it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the appellant failed to prove a conspiracy and that the defendants' conduct was consistent with breach of contract or negligence.

The appeal and the appeal as to costs were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for extortion, attempted extortion, and criminal harassment against three of his employees, as well as his three-year custodial sentence.

The appellant had falsely accused the employees of theft and threatened to call the police or immigration authorities unless they paid him large sums of money, obtaining almost $50,000 in total.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the relation of evidence to issues, similar fact evidence, or the law of extortion and harassment.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the three-year sentence fit given the serious nature of the threats, which included leveraging alleged associations with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

The appellant, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and disguise with intent, and was sentenced to two years less a day following a joint submission.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of his post-sentence rehabilitation, including part-time employment and educational progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence did not significantly alter the picture presented to the sentencing judge, who had already factored the appellant's high potential for rehabilitation into the lenient sentence.

The appellant, a 23-year-old first-time offender, appealed his sentence of 5 years' imprisonment for sexually assaulting two acquaintances on successive dates.

The offences involved planning, violence, threats, and attempted rape.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the serious nature of the offences required a penitentiary sentence and that the 5-year sentence was lenient, reflecting the appellant's youth and lack of a prior record.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred by failing to consider an absolute or conditional discharge, and by refusing a provision that would allow him to live in 24-hour supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board did not err in refusing a discharge given the appellant's ongoing risk to the community.

However, the Court found the Board erred in law and misapprehended evidence by refusing the supervised accommodation provision, which was recommended for therapeutic reasons and to place the appellant on a waiting list.

Despite finding this error, the Court declined to alter the disposition due to fresh evidence and a pending hearing regarding a significant increase in the restriction of the appellant's liberty.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the eyewitness identification evidence of undercover police officers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was not required to explicitly mention the frailties of eyewitness identification and properly relied on the officers' close-proximity observations of the appellant's distinctive facial scar and voice pattern.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to extend the suspension of a declaration of invalidity to September 30, 2014.

The extension was requested because legislation responding to the court's previous decision was still proceeding through parliament.

As the request was reasonable and consented to by all parties and the amicus curiae, the Court of Appeal granted the motion.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order.

The order below dismissed the appellant's summary judgment motion without making any binding determinations of law under Rule 20.04(4).

The Court of Appeal held that the order was not final and quashed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The parties executed minutes of settlement requiring the respondents to pay $250,000 in instalments, with a consent judgment held in escrow.

The respondents missed the final $95,000 payment, prompting the appellant to file a writ of execution.

The respondents successfully moved for relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, and the motion judge rescinded the consent judgment, granting judgment for $95,000 instead.

The appellant appealed, arguing it should have been allowed to revert to its option to continue the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no live issue that the option could be revived after being exercised.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention.

It was uncontested that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, precluding an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was fully supported by the evidence and free of legal error.

Fresh evidence indicated the appellant was incapable of consenting to treatment, making a conditional discharge unavailable.

The appeal was dismissed.