Russell G. Juriansz

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

On appeal, he challenged the issuance of the search warrant that resulted in the charges against him.

The Court of Appeal found that the reviewing judge's decision was deserving of deference and that, on the basis of the record before her, the issuing justice could properly issue the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and sexual interference.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the complainant's testimony reliable by framing the legal test for collusion too narrowly and failing to consider the possibility of inadvertent collusion between the complainant and his mother.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's description of collusion may have been narrow, she carefully reviewed communications between the parties and found they were limited to discussing timing of events and did not influence the complainant's recollection of the substance of the allegations.

The trial judge's findings regarding credibility and reliability were upheld as open to her on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant, that the appellant's section 10(b) Charter right was not violated, and that the appellant's statement made en route to the cell was voluntary.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

At trial, the appellant argued he had an honest but mistaken belief that the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The trial judge rejected this defence, finding that the complainant's obvious intoxication vitiated any consent and that the appellant's decision to engage in sexual activity was either reckless or wilfully blind.

The trial judge also found that silence, passivity, and ambiguous conduct do not constitute consent, and that the complainant's actions in the bathtub could not be said to constitute consent to vaginal penetration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The appellants appealed a contempt sentencing order from the Superior Court.

The respondent had brought an action claiming monies advanced to the appellants were not properly disbursed and that the appellants lacked a proper accounting system.

An interim order required the appellants to account for monies received, disclose documents to an appointed accounting firm, and pay unpaid accounts.

The appellants were found in contempt for failing to comply with the accounting and disclosure requirements.

On appeal, the appellants did not contest the contempt finding but challenged the sentencing as based on an erroneous finding that they had not purged their contempt and as disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding purge of contempt, and that the sentence was disproportionate.

The appellants sought to overturn a trial judgment dated February 28, 2018 by advancing arguments that had been rejected by the trial judge and by challenging his credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the entitlement to deposits in a real estate transaction.

The application judge had determined that the respondents were prima facie entitled to the deposits based on the written contracts.

The appellants argued the application should have been converted to an action and raised claims for relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the application was properly authorized under the Rules of Civil Procedure, that there were no material facts in dispute, and that the deposits were true deposits with no evidence of disproportionality or unconscionability.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering rescission of an asset purchase agreement.

The trial judge found that the appellant made fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations regarding defects in the building that were known at the time of closing.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's submissions that the trial judge made extricable legal errors in contract interpretation or that the interpretation was commercially unreasonable.

The court found no palpable and overriding errors or inadequacy of reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants, current and former uniform members of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their proposed class action for want of jurisdiction and denying certification.

The appellants alleged systemic gender-based workplace discrimination and harassment, including breach of Charter rights and breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants' claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the Police Services Act and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court noted that the collective agreement permits group grievances and arbitrators possess broad remedial powers.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing an application on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The appellant argued that the application judge should have dismissed the application on the alternative ground that the claim was improperly constituted as an application rather than an action.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was from the judgment, not the reasons, and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarded by the trial judge in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the award of damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

An online retailer of prescription eyewear based in British Columbia appealed an application judge's decision that found it was in breach of Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act by dispensing prescription eyewear to Ontario customers without involving Ontario-licensed health care providers.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in determining that sufficient constitutional connection existed between the respondent's online sales and Ontario's regulatory scheme.

The court held that while delivery of prescription eyewear falls within the continuum of dispensing activities, the mere delivery of product ordered online and processed in compliance with British Columbia's regulatory regime does not establish sufficient connection to apply Ontario's controlled act provisions to an out-of-province supplier.

The court emphasized that the discrete act of delivery has primarily a commercial aspect rather than a health care one, and that applying Ontario's legislation would effectively grant a monopoly over the importation of prescription eyewear into Ontario.

The appellant, Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice striking its claim in negligence for pure economic loss against the respondent, The Attorney General of Canada.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that Niagara College did not have a proximate relationship with Immigration Canada, and upheld the decision to strike the negligence claim without leave to amend.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

An appeal from a trial judgment that recognized a new common law tort of harassment and found the defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The plaintiff, an RCMP constable, alleged harassment and bullying by RCMP managers from 2005 to 2012.

The trial judge awarded $100,000 in general damages, $41,000 in special damages, and $825,000 in costs.

The appellate court reversed, holding that no tort of harassment exists in Ontario and that the elements of intentional infliction of mental suffering were not established.

The court found numerous palpable and overriding factual errors in the trial judge's findings, particularly regarding the plaintiff's failure to comply with regulations requiring leave without pay before running for political nomination and the bona fides of management's concerns about conflicts of interest.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a warrant of committal, challenged the Board's May 8, 2018 disposition imposing a detention order on a general secure unit and refusing community living privileges.

The appellant did not contest the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the conditions were not the least onerous and restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness, risk of reoffending, and the evidentiary basis for the alcohol prohibition condition.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts of fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000, as well as seeking leave to appeal his custodial sentence of two years less a day.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant's s. 11(b) Charter application regarding delay.

The trial judge found that the delay, which exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court trials, was justified by exceptional circumstances including the appellant's inability to represent himself and the complexity of the case.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction appeal dismissal and granted leave to appeal sentence only to set aside the mandatory victim fine surcharge order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000 and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to caution the jury against speculating on the reason for his administrative leave, which he contended raised an inference of bad character.

The Court of Appeal rejected this ground, finding that the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury not to speculate about missing evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant challenged a $75,000 restitution order to St. Anne's Church, arguing that compensation should have been pursued through civil proceedings and that there was insufficient factual basis for the restitution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the restitution order, finding it was properly supported by evidence and reflected the need for denunciation and deterrence in a case involving breach of trust by a priest who misappropriated church donations.

The appellant appealed his conviction for multiple frauds arising from a credit card scam.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessment, arguing she erred in finding his testimony unbelievable and preferring the testimony of witness Miller.

The appellant also argued the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility with appropriate deference to witness evidence, and that the Crown's case had considerable strength with evidence of the appellant's involvement in key steps of the fraudulent activity.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a sentence of 30 months custody (21.5 months effective) imposed after conviction for robbery of a gas station convenience store.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in characterizing his prior sentences as lenient and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal found that while the characterization of prior sentences as lenient was inappropriate, it had no impact on the sentence imposed.

The court upheld the sentence as fit, noting the appellant's extensive criminal record, ineffective probation orders, 14 convictions for breaching court orders, and substance abuse issues.

The court emphasized the vulnerability of convenience store clerks working alone late at night.

The appellant appealed his convictions by judge alone on three charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine, MDMA, and ketamine.

The trial judge found that the Crown had proven the appellant had the requisite knowledge and control of the drugs found in an apartment.

The appellant challenged the credibility of police officers' testimony regarding surveillance observations and the trial judge's reliance on certain facts.

The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.