Sarah E. Pepall

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation against her former solicitor.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the 'but for' test for causation applied and that the conduct of the solicitor retained after the respondent effectively broke the chain of causation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they were engaged in a joint venture involving repeated and dangerous violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly instructed herself on the law of joint venture tort liability and that her finding was reasonable on the evidence.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The appellant appealed his drug convictions, arguing that the police violated his s. 8 Charter rights by conducting a warrantless search of his apartment.

The police had relied on the exigent circumstances exception under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after arresting a drug dealer outside the building and observing repeated unanswered calls to the dealer's phone, which they believed would alert the supplier inside.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police did not artificially create the exigent circumstances through a preplanned course of conduct, as the events creating the urgency were unanticipated.

The appellant, who held a power of attorney for an elderly resident in a long-term care facility, misappropriated over $378,000 of the resident's assets and defrauded Veterans Affairs Canada.

He was convicted of theft and fraud, and sentenced to two years less a day in jail, restitution, and a lifetime prohibition order under s. 380.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, the jail sentence, and the restitution orders.

However, the Court struck the s. 380.2(1) prohibition order, finding that it constituted punishment and therefore the presumption against retrospectivity applied, meaning it could not be imposed for an offence committed before the section was enacted.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a personal guarantee for a small business loan and setting aside the transfer of a matrimonial home as a fraudulent conveyance.

The appellants argued the Bank's refusal to provide information about the primary debtor's account rendered the guarantee unconscionable or breached a duty of honest performance.

The Court of Appeal found the Bank breached a contractual disclosure obligation but held this did not discharge the guarantee because the guarantor failed to prove any resulting prejudice or damages.

The court also upheld the finding that the property transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they were in default of a vendor take back promissory note, which triggered an acceleration clause.

The application judge found that the appellants failed to make full quarterly payments and that proper written notice of default was provided.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's interpretation of the promissory note and conclusion that notice was properly given were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its debt claim as statute-barred.

The appellant argued the limitation period should run from the date it received notice that the respondent's cheque was dishonoured, rather than the date the cheque was presented.

The Court of Appeal held that the limitation period began to run on the date the cheque was presented, as the appellant was suing on the loan agreement, not the cheque.

The court also rejected the argument that an admission during cross-examination reset the limitation clock, as it occurred after the limitation period expired.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Century Plumbing and Heating, appealed a summary judgment decision that removed the respondents, ADT Security Services Canada Inc. and Intercon Security Limited, from several actions relating to a flood in a Toronto tower.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in finding the Building Automation System had frozen, in not considering video evidence, and in relying on inadmissible evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including an admission by the building owner that the system had frozen, and that the appellant failed to establish a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued that a $5,000 cash payment from the respondents extended the limitation period, a claim the respondents denied.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge properly refused an adjournment, he failed to resolve the material contradictions in the evidence regarding the alleged payment.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt and a sentence of six months' house arrest for breaching a 2006 consent order prohibiting him from practicing chiropractic or using the title of chiropractor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the contempt finding, noting the appellant had consented to proceed without viva voce evidence and there was overwhelming evidence of his breach.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding the motion judge properly considered the principle of least restrictive sanction given the appellant's ongoing defiance and the need for public protection.

The committal order was varied on consent to allow the appellant to show cause before incarceration.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision upholding a discretionary firearms prohibition order under s. 110 of the Criminal Code and a weapons prohibition in his probation order, following a conditional discharge for a minor assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and deleted the prohibition orders, noting the assault was minor, isolated, and did not involve a weapon.

The court also considered the appellant's lack of a criminal record, his safe use of firearms for competitive shooting, and his completion of an anger management course.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder after breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and attacking her with a knife.

He was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding the sentence fell within the acceptable range for attempted murder in a domestic context.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing child pornography found on his laptop.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his knowledge of the files, specifically whether desktop icons were visible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the appellant must have seen the icons and known of the files.

The court held the verdict was supported by ample evidence and was not unreasonable.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after her two-year-old daughter died of heat stroke.

She was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment less 6 months' credit for time served.

On appeal, she argued the sentencing judge erred in his findings regarding her beating of the child, in refusing credit for pre-trial house arrest, and in determining the sentencing range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's factual findings, exercise of discretion regarding pre-trial custody credit, or the fitness of the sentence given the high level of moral blameworthiness and vulnerability of the victim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for weapons trafficking under s. 99 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the Crown failed to prove he knew the sale of the gun was unauthorized, and that the finding he aided and abetted the transfer was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defence had conceded the knowledge element at trial by focusing exclusively on whether the appellant played a role in the transfer.

The Court also held that the trial judge's conclusion regarding aiding and abetting was amply supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, raising an argument of judicial bias.

The Court refused leave, finding that the bias argument was specific to the case, did not raise an issue of significance to the general administration of justice, and was not a strong argument, having already been rejected by the summary conviction appeal court judge.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentence arising from historical sexual assault allegations involving two complainants in a family context.

The court held that, although the reasons were capable of appellate review and the correct W.(D.) framework was identified, the trial judge committed reversible errors by misapprehending evidence of animus, misapprehending the appellant's evidence concerning an earlier allegation, and improperly treating a prior disclosure as negating the defence theory of collusion.

The prior disclosure was not sufficiently consistent with the later allegations to function as a prior consistent statement rebutting fabrication.

The curative proviso was unavailable because the convictions were supportable but not inevitable.

A new trial was ordered on all counts, including those previously stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board had no obligation to make further inquiries beyond the joint position of the parties based on the record.

The Court noted the appellant's progress, the existence of a treatment plan, and concluded that the Board's disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive available.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a committal order made at a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the arguments advanced confused the function of a trial judge with that of a preliminary inquiry judge.

The Superior Court judge properly limited his review to whether the totality of the evidence provided a basis for the committal order.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Board relied on uncontroverted evidence from CAMH staff that the appellant could no longer be effectively treated there.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination was not unreasonable.