Sarah E. Pepall

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He appealed his convictions, challenging the validity of search warrants executed at two properties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of a garage where he only had a key and permission to store tools, as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court also upheld the validity of the search warrant for his residence, finding that detailed information from a confidential informant, corroborated by police surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties disputed the interpretation of a rent-reset clause in two 100-year ground leases.

The landlord appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside an arbitral award valuing the lands based on a hypothetical freehold condominium development.

The tenants cross-appealed, arguing the leasehold interest should be valued and seeking a new arbitral panel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeals, holding that issue estoppel applied from a 1993 decision between the parties, meaning the lands must be valued as a freehold interest but excluding the potential for freehold condominium development because the lands are subject to a lease.

The court also affirmed remitting the matter to the original arbitral panel.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder after a housekeeper was strangled to death during a break and enter.

At trial, each accused blamed the other for the killing.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his instructions regarding party liability, the use of lies to police, and the evidence of a co-accused's ex-wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the jury instructions on common purpose liability or post-offence conduct, and concluding that the Crown's cross-examination did not render the trial unfair.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee without cause and awarding 15 months' reasonable notice plus damages for lost bonus payments.

The employer argued the employee breached its Code of Business Conduct by sharing a private placement memorandum with a third party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the document was not confidential and its disclosure did not violate the Code.

The Court also upheld the 15-month notice period and the award of damages for lost bonuses, finding that unilateral changes to the bonus plan introducing forfeiture provisions had not taken effect.

The appellant was wrongfully dismissed after 14 years of employment.

The motion judge awarded a 17-month reasonable notice period but denied damages for lost bonuses, finding the bonus plan required 'active employment'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in principle by focusing on whether the 'active employment' term was ambiguous rather than whether it unambiguously limited the appellant's common law right to damages.

The Court found the term did not oust the common law entitlement and awarded the appellant damages for the bonuses he would have earned during the notice period.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence but died prior to the release of the decision.

The Court of Appeal considered whether to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal despite the general rule of abatement upon death.

Finding no issue of general importance or special circumstances, the court held that the appeal abated and dismissed it.

The appellant appealed his convictions and six-year sentence for historical sexual offences.

He argued the trial judge failed to resolve an inconsistency between the complainant's prior statement and her trial testimony regarding whether her mother and brother entered the room during the assaults.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the inconsistency did not detract from the overall claim of repeated sexual misconduct and the trial judge's reasons were sufficient.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was proportional to the gravity of the offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and assault, and sought leave to appeal his sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, had a lengthy criminal record but had never previously received a penitentiary sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the three-year sentence offended the proportionality principle and the "step" principle.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence, allowed the appeal, and substituted a sentence of time served plus one day, as the appellant had already served over 27 months.

The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against a complainant who was between 13 and 19 years old at the time.

The appellant, who was in a position of trust, appealed the conviction and the sentence of 7 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) principles and improperly treated the case as a credibility contest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment or application of legal principles.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud, arguing that the Crown failed to establish the actus reus because the alleged victim, Legal Aid Ontario, did not rely on the fraudulent conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the principle from R. v. Riesberry that proof of fraud does not always require showing reliance or inducement, provided there is a sufficient causal connection between the fraudulent act and the victim's risk of deprivation.

The appellant, a 43-year-old Aboriginal man, appealed his sentence of two years less a day followed by two years' probation for possession for the purpose of trafficking in heroin and oxycodone.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the offences involved commercial trafficking in Schedule 1 drugs by an addict to support his habit.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court reiterating the trial judge's recommendation that the sentence be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully producing marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, she raised the defence of duress, arguing she participated due to physical and emotional abuse by her romantic partner.

The trial judge failed to relate the expert evidence on battered spouse syndrome to the objective elements of duress in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and entered acquittals as the appellant had already served her sentence.

Two consortia of law firms appealed a carriage dispute over a multi-billion dollar securities class action against Barrick Gold Corporation.

The motion judge awarded carriage to the Rochon consortium, preferring their broader claims and more extensive preparation over the Koskie consortium's streamlined approach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's application of the Vitapharm factors.

The Court affirmed that the ultimate question on a carriage motion is which action is more likely to advance the interests of the class, and the motion judge's exercise of discretion in balancing the relevant factors is entitled to considerable deference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for various firearm offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, arising from a traffic stop where a handgun was found in the back of his vehicle.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his movements in the vehicle and rendered an unreasonable verdict regarding his knowledge and control of the firearm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the record and that it was open to the trial judge to infer that the appellant knew the loaded gun was in his car.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for post-forfeiture relief under s. 20 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding a property jointly owned with her husband.

The property was forfeited after her husband pleaded guilty to marijuana production and trafficking charges, while charges against the appellant were withdrawn in exchange for her agreement not to make submissions at the forfeiture proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the appellant was fully complicit in the offences and therefore precluded from relief under s. 20(4)(a).

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a municipal bylaw designating their property as a heritage building.

The appellants argued the bylaw was void ab initio due to a defect in the notice of intention to designate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the application, brought under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001, was barred by the one-year limitation period in s. 273(5), as the appellants had actual notice of the designation years before commencing the proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, estate trustees, appealed a motion judge's order that they bear their own costs of an estate litigation settlement.

The appellants argued they were entitled to indemnification from the estate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while estate trustees are generally entitled to indemnification for reasonably incurred legal costs, the appellants' dilatory and self-interested conduct in failing to make timely disclosure disentitled them to recovery from the estate.

The respondent, a Canadian businessman, brought a libel action in Ontario against an Israeli newspaper regarding an article published online and in print.

The appellants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction, Israel was a more appropriate forum, and the action was an abuse of process.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding Ontario had jurisdiction based on the tort being committed in Ontario, and that Israel was not clearly a more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court of Justice decision granting certiorari, which quashed the appellant's discharge previously ordered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing entirely with the conclusion and analysis of the reviewing judge.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring her to a secure forensic unit and revoking her community living privileges.

She argued the Board breached natural justice due to alleged conflicts of interest of two panel members and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and that the Board's disposition was reasonable given the significant deterioration in the appellant's mental state and behaviour.