Robert P. Armstrong

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for assault causing bodily harm.

The trial judge had imposed a two-year conditional sentence concurrent to a jail sentence.

The Court of Appeal found multiple errors of law, including imposing a conditional sentence concurrent to a jail sentence, exceeding the maximum length for a conditional sentence, and effectively imposing a penitentiary sentence when accounting for pre-trial custody.

The Court also found a conditional sentence manifestly inappropriate given the respondent's record and the unprovoked nature of the attack.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to an additional six months' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed his convictions following a jury trial.

The Court of Appeal identified two fundamental errors of law: the trial judge failed to take the verdict from the jury on both counts after the appellant was placed in their charge, and failed to direct the jury on the included offence of simple possession.

Applying the principle from R. v. Haughton, the Court found that the failure to leave the included offence with the jury may have affected the verdict.

As the Crown did not seek a new trial on the full offence and the appellant conceded guilt for simple possession, the Court substituted a conviction for simple possession with a sentence of time served, and quashed the conviction on the second count.

The appellant appealed against his sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal against sentence as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they failed to address his testimony concerning fans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence about the fans did not undermine the informant's evidence regarding the detection of marihuana odour.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons.

The court found there was nothing in writing to support the appellants' defence, and their affidavit material did not raise a viable issue concerning the bank's knowledge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the order under appeal was interlocutory, despite a sanction providing that the claim may be dismissed for failure to comply.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought an action against their property insurer and contractors after their home was destroyed by fire, including a subrogated claim on behalf of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The Ministry withdrew its claim during the trial and did not participate.

The jury dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and assessed damages at zero.

The successful defendants sought to have the Ministry held jointly and severally liable for their costs, relying on s. 39(6) of Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act.

The trial judge refused to award costs against the Ministry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that s. 39(6) does not apply where the Plan's claim has not been assessed, and the trial judge made no error in exercising her discretion under Rule 23.05.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing because the trial judge failed to consider the long-term offender provisions, as required by the subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Johnson.

Additionally, the trial judge and expert witnesses had relied on findings from prior convictions that were later set aside by the Court of Appeal.

Although the dangerous offender finding was not unreasonable based solely on the predicate offences, the failure to consider the long-term offender provisions and the reliance on overturned convictions necessitated a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him to the Czech Republic to face charges relating to the production and possession of methamphetamine.

The applicant argued that his surrender would be an abuse of process due to his status as a police informer, alleged police corruption, and the risk of an unfair trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's factual conclusions were well-founded and that he did not err in his analysis of whether the surrender would breach the principles of fundamental justice or section 44 of the Extradition Act.

In an addendum to its previous reasons, the Court of Appeal corrected a calculation error by the trial judge, reducing the damages owing to the respondents for building loss by $152,262.67 to account for payments made to mortgagees.

The Court also dismissed the respondents' late application for prejudgment interest on the $50,000 aggravated damages award, noting that while aggravated damages are compensatory and ordinarily attract prejudgment interest, the issue was raised too late in the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a trial decision admitting an unsigned copy of his mother's 1997 will for probate.

The respondent, the testator's common law husband, had presented a 'cut and paste' photocopy after the original was lost.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the test for proving a lost will and failed to consider suspicious circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the four-part test for proving a lost will, including rebutting the presumption of revocation and proving the contents.

The Court also held that the facts did not amount to suspicious circumstances that would vacate the presumption of testamentary capacity.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal at the scheduled time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $3,500.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order surrendering him to the United States to face charges for distributing crack cocaine.

The applicant argued that the Minister failed to give adequate reasons, erred in the Cotroni assessment regarding his section 6 Charter rights, and that the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in the US breached section 7 of the Charter and section 44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's reasons adequate, the Cotroni assessment reasonable, and that the mandatory minimum sentence did not shock the conscience.

The plaintiffs, assignees of a bankrupt Ontario corporation, brought actions against two Iranian state-owned oil and drilling companies for breach of contract, conversion, and conspiracy arising from oil drilling operations in Iran.

The defendants appealed the dismissal of their motions to stay the actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part, staying the action against the oil company based on a forum selection clause in favour of Iran, and staying part of the action against the drilling company for lack of a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court allowed the claim based on a 1998 contract to proceed in Ontario due to a valid forum selection clause in favour of Ontario.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence after pleading guilty to robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault and arson committed while a youth, following transfer of the charges to adult court under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court reviewed arguments that the sentence was harsh and excessive, that mitigating factors and rehabilitation were undervalued, and that consecutive sentences and pre-sentence custody credit were wrongly imposed.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge carefully considered the offence circumstances, the offender's circumstances, and the applicable sentencing principles.

Although the sentence was at the high end for a youthful offender, it remained within range and was not manifestly unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant and the Crown both appealed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, three years' probation, and a ten-year s. 161 order for internet luring.

The appellant had communicated explicitly with an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl and was arrested at a pre-arranged meeting location.

The Crown sought to introduce fresh statistical evidence on youth internet usage, which the Court of Appeal rejected for failing the due diligence requirement.

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings, including the rejection of an expert's opinion that the appellant did not intend physical contact.

The Court concluded that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for this offence, and while the six-month sentence was lenient, it was not manifestly inadequate.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant husband, a professional hockey coach, appealed a spousal support order of $27,000 per month.

During the marriage, the parties had a practice of saving a significant portion of the husband's income in a retirement compensation arrangement due to the instability of his profession.

The trial judge included a savings component in the spousal support award to allow the respondent wife to maintain the marital standard of living, which included saving for the future.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the award did not constitute an impermissible redistribution of capital, as the wife had become entirely dependent on the husband for both daily necessities and future financial security.

The appellant husband, a professional hockey coach, appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $27,000 per month in spousal support to the respondent wife.

During the marriage, the husband directed a large portion of his high income into a retirement compensation arrangement to secure the family's financial future.

The appellant argued the support award, which exceeded the wife's immediate day-to-day needs, constituted an impermissible redistribution of capital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the savings pattern was a substantial component of the family's standard of living and the award appropriately met the wife's ongoing need for future financial security.

The appellant appealed an order dissolving a constructive trust imposed on the shares of a joint venture vehicle.

The constructive trust had been imposed to secure the repayment of a loan and the payment of the appellant's share of the joint venture profits.

After the respondents paid the amounts owing, they moved to discharge the trust to utilize accumulated tax losses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the constructive trust had served its purpose and the trial judge properly exercised his equitable discretion to dissolve it once the appellant had elected to pursue an accounting and received payment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon (a pellet gun) contrary to s. 90(2) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had concluded the pellet gun was a firearm and therefore a weapon.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to first consider whether the pellet gun was a weapon before finding it was a firearm.

Given the evidence that it was a spring-mechanism 'toy pellet gun' and no evidence it was used for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, a finding that it was a weapon was not available.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal substituted.