Robert P. Armstrong

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to allow a deduction for reasonably foreseeable future legal costs related to ongoing litigation at the date of separation, allowing a $300,000 deduction.

The Court also corrected calculation errors in retroactive spousal support and adjusted ongoing spousal support to $1,400 per month.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the equalization payment and spousal support amounts reduced.

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and drug offences, as well as his three-year custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to sever the charges, admitting improper confidential informer hearsay evidence, and failing to credit banked pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the framework for severance, the evidence in question was not hearsay, and there was no proven link between the banked pre-trial custody and the current charges.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention in a maximum security facility at the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene.

The appellant sought a transfer to a medium security facility and escorted privileges within a ten-kilometre radius.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board had considered all relevant information, including the appellant's age, and had imposed the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given his frail mental condition, aggressive behaviour, and unanimous medical opinion that he was not manageable in a less secure environment.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for equalization of net family property and orders to set aside two separation agreements.

The motion judge had found her claim was statute-barred under s. 7(3) of the Family Law Act and refused to grant an extension of time under s. 2(8).

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in his application of the s. 2(8) test, particularly regarding apparent grounds for relief, good faith delay, and substantial prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his one-year custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his role in a gang attack and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant gave two voluntary statements to police explicitly acknowledging his role in the assault.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding it fit given the sudden and vicious nature of the attack by multiple people.

The appellants appealed an order granting a mistrial in a motor vehicle accident damages trial.

The trial judge ordered a mistrial after finding that the cumulative effect of inflammatory comments made by the appellants' trial counsel during closing arguments impaired trial fairness and could not be cured by a correcting instruction.

The trial judge also declined to decide the issue of damages herself, preserving the respondents' right to a jury trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's assessment of the impact of counsel's statements and her decision to order a mistrial.

The appellant was arrested for causing a disturbance and subsequently filed a complaint under the Police Services Act against the arresting officers.

A hearing officer dismissed the complaint, finding the arrest lawful and no unnecessary force used.

The appellant then brought a civil action against the officers and the Police Services Board for unlawful arrest, unnecessary use of force, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants successfully moved to strike these claims on the ground of issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirements for issue estoppel were met and that applying it would not be unfair or unjust.

The appellant filed a complaint under the Police Services Act against two police officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force.

The hearing officer dismissed the complaint, finding the arrest lawful and no excessive force used.

The appellant then brought a civil action against the officers for unlawful arrest, excessive force, arbitrary detention, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants successfully moved to strike these claims based on issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the elements of issue estoppel were met and there was no reason to exercise discretion to refuse its application.

The respondents sought costs of $77,362 for the motion for leave to appeal, the motion to expedite the appeals, and the appeals.

The Court of Appeal noted that the arguments were similar to those advanced before the motion judge and the Divisional Court.

The Court fixed the respondents' costs on a partial indemnity scale at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellants.

Following a successful appeal, the court addressed the disposition of the $15,000 costs awarded by the Divisional Court to the respondent.

The court applied the general rule that when an appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and costs below are awarded to the successful appellant.

The appellants were awarded $15,000 in costs for the Divisional Court proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they did not suffer a serious and permanent impairment under s. 35(5) of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including the finding that any impairment contributing to the breakdown of the appellant's marriage was not proven to be serious and permanent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal damages award, arguing that disability benefits and gross sales from the respondent's new business should be deducted from the award.

The Court of Appeal held that the disability benefits were from privately-placed insurance and should not be deducted.

However, the court found that the respondent's net income of $7,439 from his new business should be deducted from the general damages award.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect this deduction.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the respondent had met his obligation to cooperate under the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's reliance on the respondent's accountant's evidence regarding the risk of filing a false tax return.

The court also upheld the motion judge's costs order.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death after striking and killing a pedestrian while driving at a high rate of speed in a residential neighbourhood.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a ten-year driving prohibition.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding causation without determining the victim's exact location, misapprehended evidence, failed to give credit for strict pre-trial bail conditions, and imposed an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion, and concluding that the five-year sentence was not a substantial and marked departure from sentences customarily imposed for similar offences.

The appellant publisher appealed a trial judgment that rectified a publishing agreement due to mutual mistake and awarded damages and costs to the respondent societies.

The trial judge found the parties intended the contract's subscriber list requirement to include both institutional and individual subscribers, not just institutional ones.

The Court of Appeal upheld the rectification, finding the trial judge properly applied the test for mutual mistake.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's costs award was reasonable given the appellant's conduct and the complexity of the simplified procedure action.

The appellant slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot, suffering a broken ankle.

She commenced actions against the property owner and the winter maintenance contractor more than six years after the fall.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing both actions, finding the discoverability rule did not apply to extend the limitation period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the property owner, as its identity could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal against the maintenance contractor, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the appellant could have reasonably discovered its identity.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and uttering threats against two former employees at his restaurant.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence of collusion and animus among the complainants, and misapprehended evidence regarding the duration of one of the assaults.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the convictions related to the first complainant due to the trial judge's failure to critically analyze the evidence of collusion and animus.

The conviction related to the second complainant was upheld, as the trial judge's misapprehension of the assault's duration did not affect the ultimate finding of lack of consent.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred by failing to direct that necessary inquiries regarding the appellant's mother becoming an 'approved person' be finalized forthwith, as required by Winko.

The Board also misapprehended evidence by stating the appellant had no track record in the community, when in fact he had successfully completed several unescorted passes.

The Court substituted an order for conditional release and remitted the matter to the Board to determine appropriate conditions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault against two young cousins, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, finding no collusion between the complainants, providing inadequate reasons regarding his limited opportunity to commit the offences, and misapprehending medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or adequacy of reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the four-year term was within the appropriate range.