Robert P. Armstrong

The appellant appealed an order setting the terms of a reference following a lengthy trial regarding a dredging contract, arguing the terms were too broad.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's formulation of the terms, given his familiarity with the case.

However, on concession by the respondents, the court removed one paragraph of the order that was inconsistent with the trial judgment regarding pre-judgment interest set-off.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The plaintiff and the deceased cohabited for 23 months before the deceased's sudden death.

The deceased had promised to transfer his RRSPs to the plaintiff if they were still living together, but died before changing his will or signing a cohabitation agreement.

The trial judge awarded the plaintiff $1,750,000 based on a constructive trust arising from unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the estate's appeal, finding no unjust enrichment because the benefits the plaintiff received outweighed her contributions.

The court also held that a constructive trust was inappropriate as monetary damages would have sufficed and there was no link between her contributions and the RRSPs.

The appellant, a Canadian pig producer, appealed an order dismissing its motion for an anti-suit injunction and granting a stay of its Ontario action against a Russian corporation.

The appellant sought to avoid an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Moscow, alleging the respondent's CEO made death threats against its chief operating officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the injunction issues moot as the arbitration had already occurred.

The court upheld the stay of the Ontario action, concluding the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the appellant's related tort claims.

The appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, which was entered on his consent at trial.

He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appointed amicus curiae found no basis for this claim.

The Court of Appeal held there was no evidence that the appellant's consent was involuntary, equivocal, or uninformed, and found the NCR verdict was reasonable based on the psychiatric assessment and the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the appellant were irrelevant and did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000 plus GST and disbursements.

The appellant union fined the respondents for crossing a picket line during a legal strike.

The fine was equal to their gross pay for the days worked.

When the respondents refused to pay, the union sought to enforce the fines in Small Claims Court.

The respondents brought an application in the Superior Court, where the judge found the fine provision in the union constitution to be an unenforceable penalty clause and unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the union's appeal, upholding the finding that the fine was unconscionable due to inequality of bargaining power and the substantial unfairness of a fine equivalent to gross pay.

The appellant appealed his convictions for cocaine trafficking and firearm offences, as well as his eight-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to reopen the case to allow alibi evidence, and by improperly treating the evidence of an accomplice and a corroborating officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary refusal to reopen the case or her credibility assessments of the witnesses.

The sentence was upheld as fit.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his convictions for criminal harassment and uttering threats, arguing violations of his s. 11(b) Charter rights, ineffective assistance of counsel, and trial judge errors.

On the day of trial, the appellant appeared without his lawyer, refused substitute counsel, and elected to proceed unrepresented without bringing a s. 11(b) application despite the trial judge's warnings and offer of an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted leave only on the s. 11(b) issue but dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had received legal advice, was aware of his options, and chose to proceed despite warnings.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

At the hearing, the appellant conceded he obtained the placement he sought.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was justified in rejecting the request for an absolute discharge given uncontroverted evidence that the appellant continued to present a significant threat to the public.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of contract and substantial indemnity costs.

The dispute arose from a commercial real estate development agreement where the respondent made changes to a site plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual determinations and noting the appellant failed to prove damages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, holding that the trial judge erred by awarding substantial indemnity costs without hearing submissions on the scale.

The costs award was reduced to partial indemnity for the period before the appellant amended its pleadings to allege fraud.

The municipality appealed a decision quashing its sign by-law in its entirety and granting the respondent an individual remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter to erect billboards.

The Court of Appeal found that while the by-law infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter, certain provisions were justified under s. 1 as they minimally impaired freedom of expression to achieve aesthetic objectives.

However, other provisions that effectively eliminated all commercially viable locations for third-party signs were not saved under s. 1 and were quashed.

The Court also held that the application judge erred in granting an individual remedy under s. 24(1) alongside a declaration of invalidity.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a previous order that struck his claim against the Real Estate Council of Ontario.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal, claiming his lawyer was out of the country, but provided no proof of retainer.

The Court of Appeal denied the adjournment and dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the appellant's evidence did not meet the requirements of Rule 59.06(2) to set aside the order.

The court also noted the proposed action constituted an abuse of process and a collateral attack on a decision the appellant had failed to appeal.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy endorsement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly resolved the ambiguity in Endorsement II to achieve commercial reality and reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties, rather than applying a strict rule of giving the same words the same meaning which would have rewritten the policy.

The appellant was convicted of perjury for swearing under oath that he was licensed to practice law in the State of New York.

At trial, the Crown relied on a business record from the New York State Unified Court System showing no record of the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence only established he was not registered to practice in state courts, not federal courts in New York.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the charge as framed in the indictment was not established by the evidence and declined the Crown's request to amend the indictment.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by failing to give the usual 2-to-1 enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, which the trial Crown had not opposed.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal in part, and reduced the sentence to time served.

The court also clarified that the restitution order did not provide for restitution to the James Estate and found no other errors.

The appellants were convicted of possession of stolen property under $5,000 and fraud over $5,000 arising from the sale of a motorcycle containing stolen components.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding recent possession, wilful blindness, after-the-fact conduct, and the failure to give a Vetrovec warning.

They also appealed their conditional sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate when read as a whole and no Vetrovec warning was required.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentences were not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a videotaped police station statement that was allegedly tainted by earlier inadmissible statements made in a police cruiser, and in instructing the jury on the defence of accident and intent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the station statement was a 'fresh start' separated by time, location, and consultation with counsel, and that the jury was properly instructed on the requisite intent for murder.

The appellant appealed his convictions for failure to provide a breath sample and impaired driving.

He argued the trial judge erred in treating videotaped evidence and in dismissing his section 10(b) Charter application regarding his right to consult counsel of choice.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no unreasonable errors in the trial judge's findings.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent commenced an action in Georgia, which was stayed on consent due to an arbitration clause specifying the Arbitration Act (Ontario).

The respondent then applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to appoint an arbitrator.

The appellant argued the Georgia court had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction under sections 9 and 10 of the Arbitration Act, as agreed by the parties.

The order was varied to name a specific arbitrator.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter after loading a shotgun that his girlfriend subsequently used to shoot and kill the victim.

The sentencing judge imposed an effective sentence of 12.5 years, including pre-trial custody credit.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was unfit given his minimal involvement in the actual killing.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentence was outside the appropriate range, noting the lack of evidence of actual participation in the killing and the absence of a serious related criminal record.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to nine years less credit for pre-trial custody.