Robert J. Sharpe

The appellant appealed a committal for extradition to the Republic of Korea for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The appellant argued the record of the case lacked sufficient basis for committal and contained inconsistencies and translation issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the will-say statements provided sufficient evidence of fraudulent transactions to support committal.

The application for judicial review was also dismissed, as the Minister was not required to seek assurances that the appellant would be tried only on particularized allegations.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to order a Community Treatment Order (CTO) instead.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on psychiatric evidence that the appellant would stop his medication and become a threat if absolutely discharged.

The Court also noted the Board lacked jurisdiction to order a CTO, as only a physician can issue one under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm, 'over 80' causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He challenged the validity of the search warrant used to obtain his hospital blood test results and the admission of those results without specific evidence of the testing equipment's reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the search warrant valid and upholding the trial judge's reliance on the implicit accuracy and reliability of a large urban hospital's laboratory equipment.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent for drug and proceeds of crime offences due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly analyze and allocate the periods of delay.

Upon conducting its own analysis, the Court of Appeal concluded that the total period of Crown and institutional delay was approximately 10 months, which only slightly exceeded the Morin guidelines.

Balancing this against the minimal prejudice suffered by the respondent and society's interest in a trial on the merits, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the stay, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in an estates matter, arguing the motion judge erred in proceeding by summary judgment, interpreting an independent legal advice provision, and rejecting claims of misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to make necessary factual findings under Rule 20, the appellant was a sophisticated businessman who chose not to obtain independent legal advice, and there was no evidence of misrepresentation regarding the testator's wishes.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a settlement incorporated into a previous court order.

The settlement required the appellant to pay an equalization amount to the respondent.

The appellant argued the settlement should be conditional on his ability to pay without selling his property in Jamaica.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision and noting that the appellant's reluctance to sell the property did not justify failing to pay the equalization amount.

The appellant pleaded guilty to eight drug-related offences, including production and possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana and cocaine, and breaches of recognizance.

He was sentenced to 16 months in prison pursuant to a joint submission.

He appealed his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the guilty pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the joint submission was contrary to the public interest or that the sentence was disproportionate given his criminal record.

Following an appeal where one appellant was successful and the other unsuccessful, the appellants brought a motion to readdress costs.

Counsel for the appellants had previously agreed to a costs arrangement but later realized he made an error regarding the successful appellant's costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the correction in fairness to the successful appellant and apportioned the trial and appeal costs accordingly.

The appellant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour, reversed the burden of proof, and misapprehended evidence regarding a dropped wallet and lack of injuries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not improperly rely on demeanour or reverse the burden of proof, and that any misapprehension of evidence was not material.

The appellant challenged jury convictions for sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching arising from allegations made by a child complainant who, at trial, had no recollection of the alleged abuse or of making prior complaints.

The appeal turned on whether out-of-court statements to foster parents and police satisfied the reliability branch of the principled hearsay exception.

The court held that the trial judge misapprehended key reliability indicators, failed to grapple with leading questions, inconsistencies, delay in disclosure, and the absence of oath or meaningful truth-lie understanding, and wrongly denied the defence an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant before the jury.

The convictions were set aside and, given the long procedural history, prior successful appeal, substantial sentence served, and difficulty of a third prosecution, a stay of proceedings was entered.

The appellant solicitor appealed a trial judgment finding him negligent for failing to advise the respondents on the steps required to transfer a liquor licence when purchasing a pub.

The trial judge awarded $65,000 in damages based on the pub's resale value, despite finding the business was not economically viable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's assessment of damages was supported by evidence and entitled to deference.

The Court also rejected the argument that the respondents were the authors of their own misfortune, as reading the licence would not have informed them of the 90-day transfer requirement.

The respondents purchased property formerly used as a municipal dump and sued the appellant municipality for negligence after discovering contamination.

The trial judge awarded damages for additional construction costs and stigma.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, finding that the causal link was broken when the respondents rejected an offer to reverse the sale and chose to proceed with construction despite knowing the site was contaminated and would require significant remediation.

The appellant appealed his convictions and six-year sentence for offences related to the illegal possession of a loaded handgun.

He argued that the handgun evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to an unlawful investigative detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that under the Grant framework, the officer acted in good faith, the breach had minimal impact, and society had a strong interest in adjudicating the serious offences.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-year sentence, while at the high end of the range, was fit given the appellant's lengthy record and multiple weapons prohibitions.

The Court of Appeal released a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The respondent, RSM Richter Inc., was the successful party and was awarded costs.

The court fixed the costs of all proceedings, including the motion, stay, appeal, and cross-appeal, at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellant personally rather than by the estate.

The moving parties sought to review and set aside an order refusing to grant a stay of proceedings of a Court of Appeal judgment pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The moving parties sought the stay to prevent the responding parties from moving to alter or discharge a receivership order in a separate Superior Court proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the request did not relate to a proceeding with respect to the judgment from which leave to appeal was being sought, as the receivership order was made in a distinct proceeding.

The plaintiffs appealed a Rule 21 motion decision determining that where a plaintiff is involved in two motor vehicle accidents and the actions are tried together, the statutory deductible under s. 267.5(7) of the Insurance Act applies to each action individually.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the plain meaning of the provision requires the court to determine general damages for each action and then reduce that amount by the statutory deductible.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of the main appeal judgment, the respondents CB Richard Ellis Limited, John Lafontaine, Karen Pickernell, and Carl Lavoie requested costs of the appeal.

They had filed a factum but made no oral submissions.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that awarding a full counsel fee would be duplicative, and instead awarded these respondents one half of the costs awarded to the other respondents, fixed at $3,750 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The respondent law firm sued the appellant for unpaid legal bills arising from divorce proceedings.

The appellant counterclaimed for an order that the bills be referred for assessment, alleging his lawyer failed to address a material change in circumstance and a mathematical error in an arbitration award.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the law firm, finding the request for assessment disingenuous because the appellant had promised to pay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the request was not tactical as the factual basis was known to the solicitor during the relationship, and referred the accounts for assessment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm against his former partner, with whom he was engaged in a custody dispute.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a note written by the complainant, the nature of her injuries, and her motive to fabricate the allegations to gain an advantage in family court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to accept the complainant's explanations and reject the defence's hypotheses.

A fresh evidence application regarding post-trial custody proceedings was also dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and two counts of breach of recognizance, and sentenced to 40 months' imprisonment in addition to 16 months' pre-trial custody.

The appellant, a first offender with a history of serious mental illness, appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal reviewed institutional records indicating the appellant had resisted treatment in custody.

Given the brutality of the assault and the risk posed to the community, the Court found no error by the trial judge and dismissed the sentence appeal.