Robert J. Sharpe

Following the dismissal of an appeal and motions for leave to act as representative plaintiffs by objecting class members (Home Depot and Wal-Mart), the representative plaintiffs and several defendants sought costs.

The objecting class members argued they were immune from costs under s. 31(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction exists under ss. 14(1) and (2) to award costs against class members who unsuccessfully seek to represent the class to object to a settlement.

The court awarded costs to the moving parties, finding the delay in filing submissions was justified.

This appeal concerned two class actions (Brazeau and Reddock) brought by federal inmates challenging the legality of administrative segregation practices.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the motion judge's finding of liability against Canada for breaches of ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, concluding that the prolonged administrative segregation practices constituted cruel and unusual punishment and lacked independent review.

The court found that Canada's failure to alter its policies despite long-standing criticism met the "clear disregard for Charter rights" threshold for awarding damages.

However, the court set aside the motion judge's order in Brazeau to use aggregate damages for structural changes to penal institutions, deeming it an unjustifiable assumption of judicial control and a misinterpretation of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court also overturned the finding of systemic negligence in Reddock, concluding that Charter damages were the more appropriate remedy.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the Brazeau damages remitted for re-determination and the Reddock negligence finding reversed.

This appeal concerned the proper calculation of cost-of-living adjustments under a pension plan, specifically the rounding policy for the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The motion judge had found the respondents were entitled to round the CPI increase to two decimal points (1.49%), resulting in a 1% pension increase.

The appellant argued the plan required adherence to Statistics Canada's one-decimal policy (1.5%), which would result in a 2% pension increase.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by ignoring uncontradicted evidence that the two-decimal rounding provision in the plan would still have meaning even with the Statistics Canada one-decimal policy for the Pension Index, particularly for recently retired pensioners.

The court held that the plan's language required adopting Statistics Canada's one-decimal policy for both the annual percentage increase and the CPI.

The appeal was allowed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the appellant, leading to a 2% pension increase for 2017.

The appellant pharmacy entered into an agreement for telemedicine services and signed an equipment lease.

The telemedicine provider defaulted, and the appellant discovered the lease contained a 'no cancellation' clause requiring continued payments to the respondent lessor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the 'no cancellation' clause unenforceable under the Tilden Rent-A-Car principle because the lessor failed to take reasonable measures to draw the harsh and oppressive term to the appellant's attention.

The appellants, Ronald Patterson and his family, appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the jury and declare a mistrial in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

During jury deliberations, a juror accessed extrinsic information (Fault Determination Rules) online and shared it.

The trial judge conducted an inquiry, issued a correcting charge, and dismissed the motions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge properly inquired into the extrinsic information and effectively addressed its prejudicial effect with a correcting charge, which the jury was presumed to have followed.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence or patent unreasonableness in the trial judge's decision.

The appellant, Abdulaziz Al-Enzi, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his 30-month sentence, which arose from a jailhouse altercation.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's decision to proactively invite submissions and grant a defence motion to reopen the case after noticing discrepancies in video evidence during judgment preparation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The court affirmed the trial judge's judicial exercise of discretion in reopening the trial, finding it was done in the interest of fairness and consistent with the Hayward test.

The court also found the sentence fit, citing serious aggravating factors including the assault's occurrence in a correctional facility, the use of a concealed weapon, and the complainant's permanent injuries.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a default judgment obtained by the respondent in Minnesota for the supply of defective goods.

The appellant argued that a forum selection clause in its quotation conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ontario courts, that Minnesota lacked a real and substantial connection to the dispute, and that enforcement was contrary to public policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the forum selection clause was permissive rather than exclusive, a real and substantial connection to Minnesota existed, and the public policy defence did not apply.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding that a $165,000 advance from his former parents-in-law to construct a 'granny suite' on the matrimonial property was a loan secured by a valid licence agreement and demand mortgage, rather than a gift or a lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the formal, lawyer-drafted agreement clearly indicated a loan and a licence, and that there was no basis in the agreement to discount the principal amount based on the duration of occupancy.

The appellant, B.D., appealed the dismissal of her action for sexual battery and negligence against the respondent, D.O. B.D. alleged D.O. anally penetrated her without consent, causing severe injury.

D.O. denied anal penetration at trial, despite a prior admission in his statement of defence.

The trial judge found deficiencies in B.D.'s evidence and was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that B.D. had proven her claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's discretion to allow the withdrawal of an admission, the holistic assessment of intertwined claims, and the credibility findings, which were entitled to deference.

The appellant, Peter Childs, appealed a motion judge's decision denying him standing in the passing of accounts for his incapable mother, Eileen Childs.

The motion judge had found the appellant to be a vexatious litigant attempting to relitigate previously decided issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the finding of vexatious litigation and abuse of process.

The court also issued an order prohibiting the appellant from filing further motions in the passing of accounts proceeding without leave.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their property claim, spousal support action, and claim for return of a bracelet, with their primary concern being the costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the statement of claim, finding it an inappropriate method for the claims.

However, the court viewed the appellant's actions as a product of confusion by a self-represented litigant rather than abuse of process.

Consequently, the court reduced the costs award from $7,500 to $2,500 but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The appeal concerns the openness of a police services board hearing regarding an extension of time for service of a disciplinary notice.

Following an investigation by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director into allegations of police misconduct in the investigation of the death of an Indigenous man, a retired judge appointed as a substitute decision-maker ordered that the extension hearing be held in camera.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and First Nation complainants sought judicial review, arguing that the hearing should be open pursuant to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Divisional Court upheld the in camera order, finding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test did not apply to administrative proceedings and that the statutory test under the Police Services Act was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative proceedings, the Charter right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press recognized in Langenfeld applies to police services board meetings, and the presumption of openness under the Police Services Act must be considered in light of this Charter protection.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault and his sentence.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's section 35(1) defence of property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that even if the appellant believed the complainants were about to unlawfully enter his home, his act of pointing a gun at the head of the female complainant and pulling the trigger was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Weare on the basis that the appellant had invited the complainants' son to return and knew precisely why they appeared at his door and that they posed no unlawful threat.

The sentence had been served and was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction on identity evidence grounds.

The trial judge had found the complainant's identification of the appellant to be reliable despite a minor discrepancy regarding facial hair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of identity evidence.

The trial judge had properly considered corroborative evidence, including a witness who confirmed details of the assailant's clothing, and had not placed undue weight on the complainant's confidence in her identification.

Appeal from trial judgment finding defendants liable on personal guarantees for 25 mortgages.

The appellants challenged the limitation period applicable to claims on stand-alone guarantees, arguing the two-year period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied rather than the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The trial judge had also reduced the amount owing by 50 per cent to account for settlement proceeds from a negligence action against the plaintiff's solicitor.

The appellants appealed the limitation period determination and the 50 per cent reduction; the plaintiff cross-appealed arguing no reduction should apply.

The court dismissed the appeal on the limitation period issue, finding stand-alone guarantees fall within "any other instrument to repay whole or part of any money secured by a mortgage" under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court allowed the cross-appeal on the double recovery issue, finding no basis to reduce the guaranteed debt by the settlement proceeds.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importing and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine following his third trial.

The appeal raised three grounds: (1) whether the trial judge erred in treating a pre-trial agreement regarding the admission of trucking logs as governed by section 655 of the Criminal Code; (2) whether the trial judge erred in admitting an out-of-court statement by Mr. Jackson; and (3) whether the trial judge erred in refusing to provide a Bosley credit in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decisions.

An appeal from a summary judgment decision concerning the entitlement of a wrongfully dismissed employee to exercise stock options and restricted share units during the reasonable notice period.

The employer argued that contractual language prevented vesting after dismissal, relying on precedent.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the employee was entitled to damages for lost opportunity to exercise awards that would have vested during the notice period, distinguishing the controlling precedent on the basis that the contractual language lacked sufficient clarity to unambiguously remove common law rights.

The employee's cross-appeal regarding damages calculation was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal.

On the sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge correctly identified the appropriate range as four to six years, the imposition of a six-year sentence at the absolute top of the range was too harsh.

Considering significant mitigating factors including a history of sexual assault trauma and the appellant's limited prior criminal record, the court reduced the sentence to five years and set aside the victim surcharge.

Appeals from determinations made by an application judge regarding the will of the late Peter Trezzi.

The deceased operated a successful construction business through two corporations: Across Canada Construction Ltd. (ACC) and Trezzi Construction Ltd. (Trezzi Construction).

Peter was the sole shareholder of Trezzi Construction.

The central disputes concerned whether Peter could effectively bequeath assets held by Trezzi Construction to his son Albert; whether his wife Gina owned 50 per cent of ACC shares; and whether Gina was entitled to an extension of time to file a surviving spouse's election under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, upholding the application judge's determinations on each issue.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence regarding the appellant driving a dump truck at her, resulting in the truck becoming stuck on rocks.

The court rejected the appellant's photographic evidence and found no error in the trial judge's refusal to adjourn proceedings to permit a last-minute s. 11(b) Charter application.

The court also found no impropriety in the appointment or conduct of amicus.

The appeal was dismissed.