Russell G. Juriansz

This appeal concerned the application of the rule against perpetuities to land development agreements.

ClubLink Corporation ULC appealed a lower court decision that upheld perpetual obligations to operate a golf course or convey the land to the City of Ottawa.

The Court of Appeal found that the contractual provisions requiring conveyance of the golf course lands to the City, or reconveyance back to the original owner, created contingent interests in land.

As these interests did not vest within the 21-year perpetuity period, they are void and unenforceable.

The court clarified that the expectation of a contingency materializing is not a factor in determining if an interest in land is created.

The appeal was allowed, and the relevant sections of the 1981 Agreement were declared void.

This is an appeal from a common issues trial judgment in a class proceeding.

The class, comprising former boarding students of Grenville Christian College, alleged systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duties due to abusive practices including corporal punishment and public humiliation.

The trial judge found class-wide breaches and awarded punitive damages.

The appellants sought to set aside the judgment, arguing errors in the trial judge's use of expert evidence and treatment of defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings of systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and that punitive damages were warranted, concluding that the trial judge's assessment of evidence and application of legal principles were sound.

The Crown appealed a 12-month sentence imposed on a young Black first-time offender for possession of a loaded handgun.

The trial judge had significantly reduced the sentence based on social context evidence of systemic anti-Black racism.

The Court of Appeal held that while social context evidence of anti-Black racism is highly relevant to assessing an offender's moral blameworthiness and rehabilitative prospects, it does not reduce the objective gravity or seriousness of the offence.

The Court also held that the Gladue framework for Indigenous offenders does not apply directly to Black offenders, though it can inform the approach.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied to two years less a day, but permanently stayed due to the passage of time.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for retroactive child support payments against her deceased ex-husband's estate.

The original 1978 Decree Nisi did not state that the child support obligation would bind the estate.

The motion judge ruled that under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, an application to claim or vary a support order against a decedent's estate cannot be brought if the original order is silent on binding the estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a support obligation under divorce legislation ends upon the payor's death unless specifically agreed otherwise, and that the Divorce Act lacks a provision similar to the Family Law Act that binds an estate.

Dunn Aggregates Limited appealed a Superior Court order barring its claim for damages under an undertaking given by Coco Paving Inc. for an interlocutory injunction.

The injunction had restrained Dunn Aggregates from breaching non-competition and restrictive covenant agreements.

The trial judge found that Coco Paving was the successful party at trial, meaning the injunction was not 'wrongfully granted,' and thus Dunn Aggregates was not entitled to damages under the undertaking.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding no special circumstances to warrant damages based on the undertaking.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's determinations regarding property and spousal support issues following a 21-day trial.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, emphasizing the high standard of deference owed to such findings in family law cases.

The appellant's arguments were largely rejected as an attempt to retry the case.

While a clerical error in the equalization payment was corrected in the appellant's favour, the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed convictions for multiple firearm and drug-related offences, alleging errors by the trial judge regarding a s. 8 Charter application (warrantless cell phone tracking and search incident to arrest) and the admission of expert evidence on drug pricing and jargon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The majority found the warrantless cell phone tracking justified by exigent circumstances and the expert evidence properly admitted.

While a concurring judge found the search incident to arrest unconstitutional due to a lack of objective grounds, the evidence was deemed admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter, considering the seriousness of the charges and reliability of the evidence.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and fixed costs in favour of the respondent at $22,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST, rejecting the claim for substantial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned the standing of a defendant to challenge a s. 38 order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

Traders General Insurance Co. appealed the dismissal of its motion to set aside a s. 38 order that allowed the Carrolls to commence a bad faith action against Traders.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a proposed defendant generally lacks standing to challenge a s. 38 order, except in limited circumstances like abuse of process or misrepresentation, which were not found here.

The court also addressed, obiter, arguments regarding whether the Carrolls were creditors and whether the bad faith claim was property of the bankrupt estate, concluding these were not determinative issues for the s. 38 order itself, but rather for the merits of the assigned action.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Shauvonne Young, appealed her conviction for importing cocaine.

The central issue was the admissibility of a hearsay statement made by her deceased father, who allegedly confessed to arranging the drug importation without her knowledge.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in excluding the statement, either under the declaration against penal interest exception or the principled approach to hearsay, particularly considering the relaxed standard for defence evidence.

The exclusion of this critical evidence led to a miscarriage of justice.

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

The Court of Appeal for Ontario partially allowed an appeal by the family of a deceased First Nations child, Brody Meekis, who died of strep throat following an allegedly flawed coronial investigation.

The family's civil claim, which included allegations of misfeasance in public office, negligent supervision, and Charter s. 15 discrimination, had been entirely struck by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal reinstated the misfeasance in public office and Charter claims, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court clarified that discriminatory conduct, even within discretionary powers, can constitute unlawful action for misfeasance, and that adverse impact discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter can arise from the application of seemingly neutral laws that disproportionately disadvantage protected groups.

The claim for negligent supervision remained struck.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed her motion to introduce fresh evidence, upholding the trial judge's parenting order which included shared parenting time and the father having final decision-making responsibility.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's calculation of the father's income for child support purposes.

However, the Court of Appeal remitted the issue of child support arrears for a six-month period (September 2019 to February 2020) to the trial judge for further consideration, as it was not addressed in the original reasons.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, appealed the mandatory revocation of his registration for professional misconduct (sexual abuse of a patient, his eventual spouse).

The appeal challenged the Court of Appeal's prior decisions in Leering and Mussani, arguing that the "zero-tolerance" policy and mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code infringed sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that sexual abuse is established by the concurrence of a health professional-patient relationship and a sexual relationship, and that mandatory revocation does not violate Charter rights, as economic interests are not protected by sections 7 or 12, and the penalty is not cruel or unusual.

The court also clarified the narrow scope of the spousal exception.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal that proceeded in writing.

The court awarded costs of $6,500, including disbursements and taxes, to the respondent, The University of Toronto.

The court noted that the appeal issues were not complex and largely replicated submissions made at first instance.

The appellant, Simplicity Air Ltd., appealed a jury award of punitive damages to the respondent, Daniel Eynon, for workplace injuries.

The jury had awarded general damages and lost wages, reduced by 75% for contributory negligence, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

The appeal addressed whether punitive damages were properly left to the jury, errors in instructions, employer liability for employee conduct, and the quantum of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's instructions were adequate, the employer was liable for supervisory misconduct, and the punitive damages award was not irrational or inordinately large, especially given the employer's instruction to falsely report the accident.

The appellant, Alexander Rose, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's post-event demeanour and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge was entitled to rely on video surveillance footage of the complainant's distraught emotional state as powerful corroboration of non-consent.

The court affirmed the principles of appellate deference to credibility findings and the functional review of trial judge reasons, dismissing arguments that the verdict was unreasonable or that the evidence was improperly assessed.

Subway Franchise Restaurants of Canada Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application for relief from forfeiture after failing to exercise a lease renewal option within the specified timeframe.

Subway argued that BMO Life Assurance Company, the landlord, breached its duty of good faith by remaining silent when Subway inquired about the lease termination date, which Subway had incorrectly diarized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that BMO did not lie, mislead, or actively contribute to Subway's misapprehension.

The court distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in *C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger*, emphasizing that a duty to correct a misapprehension only arises if the party contributed to it.

Subway had access to the correct termination date via an estoppel certificate and failed to make diligent efforts to comply with the lease terms.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted against them in a failed real estate transaction.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial regarding defences of non est factum, failure to tender (due to anticipatory breach), and the appropriateness of summary judgment despite an outstanding third-party claim.

The appeal also challenged the assessment of damages, specifically the foreseeability of bridge financing costs and mitigation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings and reasoning.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action, which was brought against the respondent under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation.

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding that the respondent's expression (a complaint to a volunteer organization about the appellant's conduct) related to a matter of public interest, the appellant's action lacked substantial merit as the respondent had valid defenses (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege), and the harm to the appellant did not outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The motion judge also awarded damages and full indemnity costs, characterizing the defamation action as a reprisal brought in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of fact and application of the anti-SLAPP test, dismissing the appeal and affirming the damages and costs awards.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a former wife's application for spousal support and equalization of net family properties under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge had dismissed the application, finding that a Lebanese annulment of the marriage deprived the Ontario court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law, clarifying that a "former spouse" under s. 7 of the Family Law Act is not restricted to those divorced in Canada, and foreign corollary relief proceedings do not remove the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction over equalization claims.

The appellant withdrew her claim for spousal support.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for consideration of the equalization claim.