Sarah E. Pepall

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his dispute of the garnishment of his pension benefits paid through a Retirement Compensation Arrangement (RCA).

The appellant argued that his RCA was exempt from garnishment under the Pension Benefits Act and that garnishment should be limited to 50 percent under either the Wages Act or the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that RCAs are excluded from the definition of "pension plan" under the Pension Benefits Act and therefore receive no protection from garnishment.

The court also found that RCA payments do not constitute wages and that support-related garnishment restrictions do not apply to equalization payments.

An appeal from a motion judge's order approving a $12.5 million settlement for a minor who suffered a severe brain injury in a high school rugby match.

The motion judge approved the overall settlement but reallocated funds to ensure adequate provision for the plaintiff's future care costs and reduced the solicitor's contingency fees from 30% to 20%, disallowing an additional $339,000.

The appellants challenged both the reallocation of funds and the fee reduction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decisions regarding the allocation of funds for future care or the reduction of solicitor's fees.

The applicant sought to review an order of a chambers judge dismissing his motion to extend the time to appeal three judgments: a default judgment against one defendant, a judgment dismissing his action against two institutional defendants arising from a jury verdict, and a costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge's discretionary decision to deny the extension of time for the default judgment, finding no grounds of appeal were articulated and finality concerns favored denial.

The Court also confirmed that the appeal of the judgment dismissing the action and the incidental costs award lay to the Divisional Court based on the quantum of the jury's assessment of damages.

The appellants successfully appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice that had reinstated a default judgment and permitted the sale of certain property.

The appeal was allowed because the respondent failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts concerning the appellants' alleged default and participation in the action when attending before the court without notice to the appellants.

The appellants were self-represented throughout most of the proceedings and only retained counsel a few months before the appeal was argued.

The court awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity basis, finding their claim for substantial or full indemnity costs to have no basis and their partial indemnity claim to be excessive and disproportionate.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The appellant had attempted suicide by driving his vehicle into a hydro pole, causing debris to strike and seriously injure a victim.

The sentencing judge imposed the custodial sentence based primarily on denunciation and deterrence, with minimal consideration of the appellant's serious mental health issues and rehabilitation prospects.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by excluding other relevant sentencing principles and failing to give meaningful consideration to the appellant's mental illness, which played a central role in the offence.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served plus two years' probation.

A tenant operating a dry cleaning business appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for wrongful termination of his commercial lease.

The landlord had terminated the tenancy based on the tenant's failure to complete a government-approved training course in the management of contaminants and wastes, as required by regulation and the lease.

The Court of Appeal found that the landlord failed to comply with the strict notice requirements under the Commercial Tenancies Act by not identifying the specific breach in the termination notice.

The court also found that the tenant had presented uncontradicted evidence that the required course was unavailable and that the Ministry of the Environment had inspected the premises, suggesting the tenant may have satisfied the regulatory requirements through alternative means.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for assessment of damages.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and related weapons offences, as well as his five-year sentence for trafficking.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his presence in the bathroom and possession of the cocaine, that the verdict was unreasonable due to unexplained contradictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because a key witness was not called.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence and owed deference, that fresh evidence regarding ineffective assistance did not meet the Palmer test, and that the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

An appeal from a December 14, 2016 Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the detention of a not criminally responsible accused at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant, diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance-use disorder, had committed index offences in 2004 involving robbery and theft.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to continued substance abuse and manic symptoms.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of post-decision disruptive conduct and upheld the detention order, finding the Board reasonably applied the "significant threat" standard and selected the least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

This appeal concerns the applicable test for determining jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants (AFCs) in a class action involving allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of air freight shipping services for shipments from or to Canada between 2000 and 2006.

The motion judge had rejected the real and substantial connection test and held that jurisdiction could only be established if AFCs were present in Ontario or had consented to the court's jurisdiction.

The motion judge also declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the real and substantial connection test applies to class actions involving AFCs and that jurisdiction may be established where there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter and Ontario, common issues exist between representative plaintiffs and AFCs, and procedural safeguards of adequate representation, notice, and opt-out rights are provided.

The court also found that forum non conveniens did not apply as no clearly more appropriate forum existed.

Appellants sued their former solicitors for negligence and lost opportunity damages, claiming the solicitors failed to raise a six-year limitation period in the underlying action against Mitsubishi Motors, which was dismissed as statute-barred under a two-year limitation period.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the misrepresentation component of the damages claim, finding the appellants had not appealed the trial judge's obiter finding of no misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an appeal is from a judgment, not from reasons, and that the appellants' appeal of the entire judgment necessarily included misrepresentation claims.

The court also held that partial summary judgment was inappropriate as the misrepresentation claims were intertwined with other claims proceeding to trial.

The appellant appealed her conviction for arson and her sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the sole issue was ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant alleged that she did not receive Crown disclosure, that her lawyer did not communicate with her, did not advance her defence, and promised acquittal.

The Court of Appeal found that the record did not support these assertions and, in some instances, directly contradicted them.

The appellant had received electronic versions of transcripts and voice recordings, and there was voluminous communication between the appellant and counsel regarding trial strategy and witnesses.

Counsel had clearly advanced the defence that the appellant wished to advance: that she had not set the fires and that her admissions in recorded conversations were play-acting.

The Court found no deficiency in trial counsel's representation and no miscarriage of justice.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

Leave to appeal the sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the Court finding no basis to interfere with the restitution order.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that the appellant remain subject to a conditional discharge.

The appellant, a 62-year-old woman with schizophrenia, was found not criminally responsible for assaulting a five-year-old child in 2011.

The Board concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety based on her history of non-compliance with medication and the risk of decompensation if she ceased treatment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion unreasonable and speculative.

The court held that the evidence did not meet the onerous standard required under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code for maintaining restraints on an NCR accused's liberty, and ordered an absolute discharge.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old victim.

The main ground of appeal concerned the admissibility of a partial recording of a telephone call between the appellant and the victim's mother, in which the appellant apologized and appeared to be crying.

The appellant also challenged the admission of incomplete text messages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, finding that the victim's mother's testimony provided sufficient context for the recorded statement and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury regarding the incomplete text messages.

The Attorney General appealed a Superior Court decision that appointed two amici to assist on an appeal challenging the trial judge's appointment of amici in a complex family law custody and access case.

The appeal judge imposed a stay of proceedings conditional on the Attorney General negotiating a mutually acceptable rate of compensation with the appointed amici.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, finding that Criminal Lawyers' Association does not impose an obligation on the Attorney General to negotiate rates with court-appointed amici, and that a stay is only appropriate where amicus assistance is truly essential and no other qualified counsel can be found.

The court set aside the stay and remitted the matter for the appointment of one amicus from counsel willing to accept legal aid rates.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with first degree murder in December 2012 and the trial was scheduled to commence in November 2016, resulting in a total delay of 48 months.

The trial judge found that after deducting defence delay and discrete events, the net delay of 40 months exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan and was not justified by case complexity or the transitional exceptional circumstance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in her complexity analysis and her application of the transitional exceptional circumstance.

The court held that the delay was justified under the transitional exceptional circumstance because the case was prosecuted almost entirely prior to Jordan's release and would not have resulted in a stay under the previous Morin framework.

The appellant, a tobacco manufacturer on the Six Nations reserve, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of the Minister of Finance's demand for security under section 12(2)(f.1) of the Tobacco Tax Act.

The appellant manufactured tobacco for export and for sale on First Nations reserves, neither of which were subject to Ontario's tobacco tax.

The appellant argued the Minister's interpretation of the security requirement was unreasonable and that the provision was unconstitutional as an indirect tax on exported goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the Minister's interpretation reasonable and the provision constitutionally valid as incidental to a valid direct taxation scheme.

The appellants appealed orders of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing their motion to set aside a reinstated default judgment and authorizing the sale of their property to satisfy the judgment.

The original action was commenced in 2001 and resulted in a default judgment of approximately $86,000.

The judgment was subsequently set aside, then reinstated by Brown J. in 2008 on an ex parte basis.

The appellants moved to set aside the reinstatement, but the motion judge dismissed their motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts when appearing before Brown J. without notice to the appellants, which was a sufficient basis to set aside the judgment.

Appeal from an application judge's decision regarding the division of property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The appellant sought sole beneficial ownership of a jointly-titled residential property (Brookdale Avenue) or, alternatively, a credit for his repayment of a joint line of credit used to finance its purchase.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the respondent held a 50 per cent legal and beneficial interest in the property, but allowed the appeal in part by granting the appellant a $500,000 credit on division of sale proceeds for his repayment of the respondent's share of the joint debt.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming her involuntary psychiatric admission.

She sought a declaration that a forced injection of anti-psychotic medication violated her Charter rights and requested rescission of her detention certificate as a remedy.

The central issue was whether the Board has jurisdiction to grant remedies under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board does not have s. 24(1) Charter jurisdiction, despite having authority to decide questions of law.

The court found that the legislature clearly intended to exclude Charter remedies from the Board's jurisdiction based on the removal of s. 52(1) jurisdiction, strict statutory timelines, limited remedial powers, composition of the Board, and the availability of Superior Court appeals.

Appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault, use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, discharge of a firearm with intent, breach of probation, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The appellant was identified as the shooter in surveillance video footage by three witnesses based on recognition from prior acquaintance.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on this recognition evidence despite finding that facial features were not visible on the poor-quality video.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly scrutinize the reliability of the recognition evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The conviction was set aside and an acquittal was entered.