Rouleau J.A.

The appellant appealed her sentence and dangerous offender designation, arguing that the public could be adequately protected by a determinate sentence made consecutive to her lengthy remanet.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's violent behaviour could not be controlled in the community was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing her detention.

She argued she was entitled to an absolute discharge as she only posed a risk of minimal harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition was reasonable and supported by the evidence, though it encouraged the Board to explore community integration at her upcoming annual review.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims.

The underlying dispute involved a subrogated claim by the appellant's insurer against the respondents, who were contractors on a diamond mine project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contracts required the appellant to obtain insurance for the benefit of its contractors and included a waiver of subrogation.

Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court held that the appellant had waived liability for losses covered by the policy, thereby extinguishing the insurer's right of subrogation.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

Alternatively, he argued the Board erred in failing to grant a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion regarding the threat to public safety.

The Court also held that a conditional discharge was unavailable because the appellant required supervised housing approved by the person in charge.