Sally A. Gomery

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their claim to set aside a mortgage agreement.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in proceeding by way of summary judgment and made palpable and overriding errors of fact and law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellants adduced no grounds to support their position that summary judgment was inappropriate.

The court noted that all alleged irregularities involved third parties, not the respondent, and that the appellants admitted knowing they were signing a mortgage with no mistake as to its nature.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants challenged the validity of a clause in the will of Jeanne Dagenais Gravelle that granted her daughter Jocelyne Gravelle an option to purchase the family home for the amount of the remaining mortgage.

The appellants argued the clause was unenforceable because the mortgage had been fully paid at the time of the testator's death.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding the option clause valid and enforceable.

The court determined that the testator's intention was to allow Jocelyne to purchase the home even if the mortgage balance was zero, and that Jocelyne would be responsible for mortgage discharge fees as consideration for the purchase.

Appeal of a summary judgment motion decision in a family law matter.

The respondent sought equalization of net family property and rejected the appellant's claims for spousal support and unequal division of family property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding the value of family assets, alleged misappropriation of funds, and spousal support entitlement.

The court also rejected the appellant's late request to file an additional notice of appeal regarding costs.

The appellants brought a motion seeking directions on whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial judgment dismissing a solicitor's negligence action.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim but assessed damages at $1,400, significantly less than the $4.8 million claimed.

The respondent contended that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction under section 19(1.2)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants requested that if the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, it should constitute itself as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction and declined to constitute itself as a Divisional Court panel, quashing the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing a firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and carelessly storing a firearm.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The trial judge found that the appellant had joint possession of a firearm his brother displayed during an altercation at a McDonald's, based on the appellant's position and actions.

The trial judge also found the appellant was a party to the careless storage of two firearms discovered in an alley after police pursuit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly applied the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and that her findings and inferences were reasonably available on the evidence.

Three appellants were convicted of first-degree murder in the 2018 shooting death of Nnamdi Ogba.

The appellants appealed on seven grounds, including challenges to jury instructions on modes of participation, admissibility of expert gang evidence, after-the-fact conduct evidence, firearm videos, W.(D.) instructions, Browne v. Dunn breaches, and jury roll compilation errors.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury instructions on modes of participation under sections 21(1)(b) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code were deficient and that there was no air of reality to section 21(2) liability.

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The court upheld the admissibility of expert gang evidence and other evidentiary rulings.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition order dated December 13, 2024.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge or, alternatively, authorization for 14-day travel passes to the United States.

The Board maintained a detention order requiring continued residence at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community housing privileges and extended Canadian travel passes to 14 days.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in law and that the disposition was reasonable and not a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching entered on November 22, 2023.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury to disregard Crown closing submissions regarding the absence of the complainant's mother's testimony about witnessing the alleged incidents.

The appellant argued that the Crown's submission was improper because the mother had told police she witnessed an incident that was not testified to at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown properly based its submission on evidence actually led at trial and that defence counsel's failure to cross-examine the mother about her police statement was a tactical decision.

An appeal from a Superior Court decision regarding the provability of a former employee's profit-sharing claim in the bankruptcy of a real estate development company.

The trustee disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was an equity claim and too contingent and remote.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract, not an equity claim, and was therefore provable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision and confirming that the profit-sharing claim is a provable claim that takes priority over the limited partners' equity claims.

The appellant, 1461043 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as Nuvo Iron, appealed the dismissal of its motion to vary a default judgment to add declarations of intentional breach of trust and that the judgment survived the respondents’ discharge from bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no basis in the record for the declarations sought and confirming that a mere breach of trust, even if negligent or incompetent, is insufficient to support a such an order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an injunction restraining secondary picketing by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers at a Purolator facility was governed by section 101 or section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The majority held that the definition of "labour dispute" in section 102 encompasses secondary picketing, and therefore, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal without leave under section 102(10).

The dissenting judge would have quashed the appeal, holding that the order was made under section 101 and thus appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

This costs endorsement follows the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision to allow the respondent’s motion to quash the appeal.

The court reviewed written submissions on costs and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent $8,088.54 in partial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals of R.V.A., who was found guilty of repeatedly sexually abusing his daughter between the ages of 12 and 16.

The court addressed the trial judge’s reliance on an adoptive admission, the treatment of the stepmother’s evidence, and the rejection of the appellant’s testimony.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the nine-year sentence fit despite a possible error regarding aggravating factors.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions by Basseth McLean and Sonia Connell, each seeking to have the other declared a vexatious litigant under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court reviews the lengthy litigation history between the parties, including multiple appeals and motions regarding the sale of their former matrimonial home and related costs.

Both vexatious litigant motions are dismissed, as is Ms. Connell’s motion to strike Mr. McLean’s pleadings.

The Court grants Mr. McLean an extension to file responding materials and allows Ms. Connell to add an appeal of a costs order to her perfected appeal.

The Court sets strict directions to ensure the efficient progress of the appeal and prohibits further motions without leave.

The appellant, Justin Aghayere Omoragbon, sought leave to appeal his 26-month sentence for breaking and entering a dwelling-house.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by not accepting the 18-month sentence proposed by the Crown and later adopted by the defence.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no joint submission on sentence, no violation of the principles in R. v. Nahanee or R. v. Anthony-Cook, and that the sentencing judge properly considered the mitigating factors and the appellant’s circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the statutory requirement that federal election Returning Officers reside in the ridings they administer violates the right to liberty under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The majority held that the right to liberty in section 7 does not extend to a free-standing right to choose one’s residence outside the context of the administration of justice, and dismissed the appeal.

The dissent would have found that the residency requirement was overbroad and infringed section 7, and would have granted the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Canguard Group Limited and others from a partial summary judgment order declaring a mortgage on the respondent’s property void as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s reliance on the evidentiary record, including affidavits, and held that the appellant’s failure to respond or provide discovery justified summary judgment.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the scope of the order and the appropriateness of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ motion for a stay of a receivership order appointing a receiver under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The decision reviews the background of the receivership, the test for a stay, and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the public interest and interests of third parties, including mortgagees, would be harmed by a stay.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal from an order refusing to set aside a default judgment against Len’s Cove Marina Ltd. The court found that the motion judge erred in weighing the relevant factors for setting aside a default judgment, particularly by failing to recognize the presence of an arguable defence and a plausible explanation for the default.

The court emphasized that the interests of justice favoured a determination on the merits and set aside the default judgment, granting the Marina 30 days to deliver its statement of defence.