Sarah E. Pepall

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for arrears owing under three vehicle leases that had been assigned to the respondent.

The appellants argued that because they did not receive written notice of the lease assignments, the respondent was required to join the assignor as a party to the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the assignor perhaps should have been joined, the appellants had actual notice of the assignment and suffered no prejudice.

The Court also rejected arguments that the trial judge violated the collateral fact rule during cross-examination and erred in her credibility assessments.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment that awarded his bankrupt wife an equalization payment, lump sum spousal support, and costs.

The wife's former lawyers also appealed an order requiring the assessment of their accounts and a personal costs award against them.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the equalization payment because the wife lacked capacity to assert the claim after her bankruptcy, and setting aside the assessment of the lawyers' accounts.

However, the Court upheld the lump sum spousal support award and the costs awards, including the personal costs award against the wife's former lawyer for acting in bad faith and running up costs without reasonable cause.

The appellant, CNH, appealed a decision of the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

During an attendance before the Divisional Court, the parties consented to refer the matter back to the Tribunal but could not agree on costs.

Following the Tribunal's subsequent decision, both parties sought costs for the earlier court attendance.

The court found neither party was entitled to the excessive costs sought and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the attendance fixed at $2,500.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over their claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract against the respondent banks.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the contract was entered into in St. Kitts and the tort was completed there, meaning Ontario lacked presumptive connecting factors.

The Court also agreed with the motion judge's forum non conveniens analysis that St. Kitts was the appropriate forum, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from an order refusing to strike fraud allegations in the Statement of Defence.

The appellant conceded that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant mother appealed a Hague Convention return order requiring the parties' child to be returned to Australia following a finding of wrongful retention in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge made no reviewable error in rejecting the claim that the respondent father consented or acquiesced through a custody agreement, in declining to entertain an unargued grave-risk defence under Article 13(b), and in finding the Article 12 settled-environment defence unavailable because the Hague application was commenced within one year of wrongful retention.

The appeal was dismissed, subject only to a variation extending the expiry date in one paragraph of the order.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for injuries sustained by the respondent child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdict was reasonable as the appellant's failure to train staff in child supervision provided a basis for finding a breach of the duty of care.

The court also found no ambiguity in the jury's answers regarding causation when given a full and liberal reading.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action on a summary judgment motion, arguing the motion judge erred in refusing to further adjourn the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the refusal to adjourn was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the history of the claim and a previous adjournment granted at the appellants' request.

The action was properly dismissed under Rule 20.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable on a guarantee for unpaid rent under a commercial lease.

The appellant argued that documents were tampered with, the trial judge was biased, and a breach of the lease's exclusivity provision relieved him of his obligation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of tampering or bias, and agreeing with the trial judge that any breach of the exclusivity provision was independent of the obligation to pay rent and the guarantee.

The parents appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship of their four children and denying them access.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Crown wardship, finding it in the children's best interests.

The court also upheld the no-access order but outlined a therapeutic process that could lead to future access if the children desired it and professionals agreed.

An alternate plan of care proposing the children move to France was rejected.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge erred in characterizing his relationship with the complainant as exploitative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion was fully justified given the appellant was 11 years older, acted as the complainant's drug supplier and street protector, and took advantage of the resulting power imbalance.

The appellants appealed an order discharging an $800,000 mortgage registered on a property.

In a prior proceeding, the court interpreted an agreement allowing the respondent to decline paying the mortgage, which gave the appellants an option to repurchase the property.

The respondent declined to pay, and the appellants did not repurchase.

The motion judge granted the discharge, finding it logically flowed from the prior decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the agreement provided the mortgage was deemed satisfied if the transaction failed to close without the respondent's fault.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action regarding two properties.

For the Fergus property, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge proceeded on an incomplete understanding of the facts regarding waiver of conditions and extension of the closing date, and that a ten-year limitation period might apply.

For the Erin property, the Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the claims were barred by res judicata as they had been or should have been resolved in prior proceedings.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the death of his domestic partner, whose body was never found.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the appellant's sister, to whom he confessed and who helped him dispose of evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable, the jury instructions were flawed regarding post-offence conduct, his confession, the lack of a Vetrovec warning, and the manslaughter charge, and that a mistrial should have been ordered due to prejudicial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdict reasonable and the trial judge's instructions and mid-trial cautions adequate to ensure a fair trial.

The respondent, an undischarged bankrupt, brought an application for a declaration that his professional liability insurer was required to indemnify him for a class action.

The insurer brought a motion to strike the application, arguing the respondent lacked legal capacity.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the order was final and that the right to receive an indemnity under an insurance contract is a chose in action that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The appeal was allowed and the application dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of stolen property and driving offences after a stolen car crashed into a parked truck.

At trial, the appellant claimed a man named 'Steve' was driving.

The trial judge rejected this evidence but made three errors of law: mischaracterizing the defence as an alibi, improperly applying the adverse inference under s. 258(3) of the Criminal Code to the issue of identity, and misusing the appellant's criminal record.

The Court of Appeal found that despite these errors, the evidence against the appellant was so overwhelming that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was dismissed using the curative proviso.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action following the death of a 22-year-old man in hospital.

The deceased had been switched from morphine to Dilaudid by the respondent physician, and the appellants alleged the dosage was excessive and caused his death by opioid overdose.

The trial judge accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the dosage met the standard of care and that the cause of death was not an opioid overdose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to liability, standard of care, or causation.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their legal malpractice action against the respondent lawyers.

The action alleged the respondents delayed applying for catastrophic impairment benefits and failed to advance Family Law Act claims for the injured party's brothers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellants failed to put their best foot forward by providing evidence of damages not compensated by the underlying $1.4 million settlement.

The appellant brought a motion asking the panel to reconsider its decision, arguing the panel declined to address an issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to reconsider, noting the issue was not part of the directed issue before the trial judge.

The panel did, however, amend one sentence in paragraph 10 of its original endorsement.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay damages and costs for fraudulent misrepresentations made to obtain a mortgage loan.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in evaluating the evidence, rejecting her claim that she was an innocent dupe in a mortgage fraud scheme, and failing to assist her as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant had participated fully at trial without any failure of assistance by the judge.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.