Sarah E. Pepall

An appeal from a Superior Court judgment dated August 1, 2018.

The appellants failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for April 2, 2019.

One appellant declared bankruptcy, though the stay was lifted as it relates to the appeal.

The other appellant left the jurisdiction.

The court scheduled the appeal for May 16, 2019, allowing the respondents to move to dismiss for non-compliance with procedural orders.

The appellants were warned that any adjournment request without prior conference call would likely fail.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of various drugs.

He received a sentence of two years less a day on the aggravated assault conviction with concurrent sentences on drug charges, followed by two years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on the aggravated assault charge and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal raised three grounds: improper cross-examination by the Crown on a girlfriend's statement, improper splitting of the Crown's case by calling the girlfriend in reply, and alleged misdirection on the defence of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from two years less a day to 12 months' imprisonment and vacating the victim surcharge.

The appellants, vendors of a commercial farm property, appealed a partial summary judgment order that declared the agreement of purchase and sale valid but denied specific performance and ordered a trial on damages.

The appellants had refused to close the transaction, alleging unconscionability, non est factum, collusion and conspiracy.

The motion judge made adverse credibility findings against the appellants, concluding they suffered from sellers' remorse.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment when genuine issues of fact and credibility existed that were inextricably intertwined with the counterclaim and third party claim against real estate agents, creating a risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings.

This is a motion to review the decision of Justice M.L. Benotto dismissing a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal panel found that Benotto J.A. applied the correct test and saw no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment order dismissing his action against police services and other defendants.

The action arose from two events: an alleged negligent police investigation into a theft complaint and alleged negligent investigations into complaints of child abuse.

The motion judge dismissed the action on two grounds: no duty of care was owed by the police to the appellant, and the action was commenced after the applicable limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded there was no duty of care owed to the appellant based on established precedent.

The appellant sought an appeal of an order dismissing its application on the grounds of mootness.

The original application sought mandatory orders and an injunction to access certain data controlled by the respondent.

The parties reached a consent order permitting access to the data on the condition that the appellant pay outstanding fees to the respondent's lawyers on a without admission of liability basis.

When the appellant failed to make the payment by the stipulated date, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, which the application judge granted on mootness grounds.

The appellant argued that the payment requirement was optional and that it should have been given a further opportunity to pay before dismissal.

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 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 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 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.

On appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellants' action for breach of contract and repudiation.

The appellants, who operated methadone treatment clinics, hired the respondent physician under a contract requiring her to remit 45% of OHIP billings and containing a non-competition clause.

Following the dissolution of the appellants' joint venture with another clinic operator, the respondent continued working at the jointly-operated clinics.

The trial judge found the contract frustrated by intervening events and that the non-competition provision was not breached.

The appellants appealed, arguing errors in the frustration analysis and interpretation of the non-competition clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on frustration and contractual interpretation but allowed the appeal in part, awarding the appellants $8,194.59 for underpayment during the period prior to the alleged repudiation.

The appellant appealed from an order striking out his statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and dismissing his action.

The appellant had commenced an action claiming punitive damages, travel expenses, interest, and costs arising from the stopping, detainment, and impoundment of his vehicle by an OPP officer, asserting a breach of rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the pleading wholly deficient and incapable of success.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge applied the correct test and that the statement of claim failed to plead material facts supporting the alleged breach or theft allegation.

The appellant town appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that its large-scale commercial aggregate extraction operation on property located in the respondent township was a permitted use under the township's zoning by-law or alternatively constituted a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The application judge found that the extraction operation was not permitted under the zoning by-law and did not qualify as a legal non-conforming use because the historical use of the property was as a municipal park with only incidental and ancillary extraction for municipal purposes.

The court found that the expansion from incidental extraction to large-scale commercial extraction constituted a change in the type of use rather than a mere intensification.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found no cause for termination and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period, a 2015 bonus, aggravated damages of $25,000, and punitive damages of $100,000.

The appellant challenged each component of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the notice period, bonus entitlement, aggravated damages based on the employer's threatening conduct and bad faith, and punitive damages reflecting the employer's strategic use of a counter-claim to intimidate the employee.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol causing bodily harm following a multi-vehicle accident on Dixie Road in Mississauga on October 19, 2013.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sought leave to introduce fresh evidence suggesting that another individual, "Volodya," was the actual driver of the van.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the motion to admit fresh evidence and the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence failed to meet the cogency component of the test for admission and that the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a conviction under the Provincial Offences Act.

On the scheduled appeal hearing date, the appellant's counsel requested an adjournment without prior notice to the Crown prosecutor, who had interrupted her vacation to attend.

The trial judge, of his own initiative, asked the Crown if it wished to apply for costs and ordered the appellant's counsel to pay $500 in costs personally, characterizing the conduct as showing reckless disregard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and vacated the costs award, finding that while the conduct was inconsiderate and worthy of adverse comment, it did not meet the high threshold for a personal costs order against counsel.

The appellant appealed a costs decision made by a Superior Court judge dismissing an application for costs of approximately $100,000 relating to an arbitration dispute.

The arbitrator had awarded damages and costs to the appellant, which were subsequently confirmed by the Superior Court judge who awarded additional costs of $2,500 for the leave and confirmation motions.

The appellant then brought a new application seeking the full $100,000 in costs, which was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was solely as to costs and therefore required leave to appeal, which the appellant had not obtained.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

An appeal from a trial judgment upholding the validity of a codicil executed by an 87-year-old mother that changed her will to leave the residue of her estate to one son instead of dividing it equally between two sons.

The appellant son challenged the codicil on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and coercion.

The trial judge found the codicil valid after a 10-day trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings regarding testamentary capacity, knowledge of assets, and the absence of undue influence or coercion.

The appellant, a registered investment advisor, was convicted of fraud over $5,000 in connection with a large-scale Ponzi-type scheme perpetrated over eight years.

He defrauded fourteen complainants of $413,500 by falsely representing that their money would be invested in shares or positions in various companies.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony as implausible and found he had deliberately misled complainants about the nature and risks of their investments, ultimately converting the funds to his own use.

The appellant was sentenced to four years in custody with restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture orders.

On appeal, the conviction was upheld and the sentence was partially modified to include an additional restitution order and increase the fine in lieu of forfeiture.