Robert P. Armstrong

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for a share of profits made by the respondent from the purchase and resale of a recreational property.

At trial, the appellant claimed an agreement to jointly purchase and market the property, which the trial judge rejected.

On appeal, the appellant argued breach of fiduciary duty and sought 100% of the profits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that breach of fiduciary duty was not pleaded at trial, the record did not support an agency or fiduciary relationship, and the appellant had repudiated his agreement to purchase the property before the respondent resold it.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a California default judgment against him.

He argued that the California court's jurisdiction was obtained by fraud, specifically alleging that the complaint falsely claimed he signed certain contracts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a real and substantial connection between the causes of action and California, and concluding that the appellant failed to present evidence of fraud going to jurisdiction.

The court held that the appellant was improperly attempting to re-litigate facts already determined by the default judgment.

The appellants sought leave to appeal their sentences for failing to provide the necessaries of life, arguing that previous case law established a sentencing range of four to eight months for first offenders.

The Court of Appeal disagreed that the cited case established such a range.

Finding no error of law, the court refused leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a treatment order but was found fit to stand trial shortly after the order was made.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the broader issues of principle regarding treatment orders were already under reserve in another case, and the remaining issues were fact-specific.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board.

With the advice of counsel, the appellant chose to proceed with a review of that disposition instead.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.

The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.

Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.

The young person appealed their conviction and sentence for robbery.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended circumstantial evidence regarding identification and erred in principle during sentencing by departing from a probation officer's recommendation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed the circumstantial evidence matching the appellant's clothing and appearance to the perpetrators.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error in principle and was entitled to weigh the appellant's poor behaviour in pre-trial custody.

The young person appealed their conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider self-defence under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the appellant relied on s. 34(1), but the trial judge only addressed s. 34(2).

The Court of Appeal found an air of reality to the s. 34(1) defence, noting the trial judge made no finding that the appellant intended to cause grievous bodily harm and the findings did not establish disproportionate force.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of the most serious offences due to grave doubts about the complainant's credibility, but convicted him of sexual assault based entirely on a statement made to a police officer.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by focusing solely on whether the statement was made, without determining whether it was truthful, especially since the complainant's evidence did not correspond to the act described in the statement.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Surrender Order made by the Minister of Justice, arguing that outstanding charges in Macedonia affected the reasonableness of the decision to extradite him to the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the outstanding charges in Macedonia were for entirely different offences and did not affect the reasonableness of the decision to extradite.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that the eyewitness description varied from his appearance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately explained why he discounted the discrepancies and reasonably relied on the remarkable coincidence that the appellant was found with the co-perpetrator minutes after the robbery wearing a shirt matching the eyewitness description.

The appellant appealed his sentence for setting fire to a police cruiser during the G20 riots.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount and the trial judge adequately considered the appellant's personal circumstances.

However, the Court struck out the restitution order because the trial judge failed to inquire into the appellant's ability to pay, noting his addiction and sporadic employment.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his rights under ss. 9 and 10 of the Charter were violated during a police encounter in a parking lot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that no detention occurred until the formal arrest, as the initial interaction was preliminary and exploratory.

The court also upheld the finding that there were reasonable grounds for the arrest, making the subsequent search lawful as an incident to arrest.

The appellant, an immigration consultant, sued a Korean-language newspaper and its reporter for libel over an article concerning a scheme that left South Korean truck drivers stranded in Canada.

At trial, the jury found that the article did not defame the appellant.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was perverse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdict was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no jury acting judicially could have reached it, as it was open to the jury to conclude that the ordinary reader would not understand the article to discredit the appellant.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing it was manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offences and the respondent's record for violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentence was extremely lenient, the trial judge had the benefit of a compelling Gladue report and was entitled to give considerable weight to restorative justice principles.

The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences, including armed robberies and break and enters, after voluntarily confessing to police following a religious conversion.

He was sentenced to 22 years consecutive to a 7-year sentence he was already serving.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentence was crushing and offended the totality principle, failing to give adequate credit for his voluntary confession and guilty pleas.

The appeal was allowed and the sentences were varied to total approximately 15 years.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a settlement with the respondent general contractor regarding substantial renovations to their family home.

The issue was whether the settlement included amounts potentially owed to a millwork sub-contractor with whom the appellants had dealt directly.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the settlement did not include work carried out by the sub-contractor as a result of direct dealings with the appellants.

The appellants, a police officer and the Chief of Police, appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that the officer discriminated against a Black mail carrier.

The officer stopped and questioned the mail carrier while on patrol in an affluent neighbourhood.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal reasonably applied the prima facie test for discrimination, correctly placed the onus on the complainant, and properly considered the unique statutory duties of police officers.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that ordered the production of an insurance policy under Rule 30.02(3).

The motion judge had originally refused production, finding the policy was sought for a collateral purpose and that uncontradicted evidence showed the deductible exceeded the claim amount.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not make a palpable and overriding error by relying on uncontradicted affidavit evidence without reading the policy itself.

The Divisional Court's order for production was set aside and the motion judge's decision was restored.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action seeking a declaration that it was the beneficiary of a trust and a beneficial owner of a 50 per cent interest in a plaza.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that a binding trust agreement was never executed.

The court also rejected arguments regarding spoliation and hearsay, noting the trial judge was entitled to disbelieve the appellant's evidence.