Sarah E. Pepall

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent and awarding damages based on a 16-month notice period.

The employer argued the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of the mining industry's cyclical nature, finding the respondent was not obliged to accept a recall position to mitigate, setting a 16-month notice period, and determining the termination date under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the respondent was constructively dismissed upon recall to a substantially different position.

The appellants agreed to purchase a home from the respondent for $2.9 million, but the transaction failed to close.

The trial judge found that the appellants repudiated the agreement and forfeited their $75,000 deposit, declining to grant relief from forfeiture despite the property later selling for more.

On appeal, the appellants argued the respondent had repudiated the contract by failing to close on the required date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the contract remained alive until the appellants chose not to proceed, and that retaining the deposit was not unconscionable.

The appellant noted her former solicitor in default and proceeded to an assessment of damages.

The trial judge found the solicitor had not served the appellant well but concluded she failed to establish any damages, providing no explanation for denying the return of her $5,000 retainer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal granted judgment for the $5,000 retainer but dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding no other damages were established.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision upholding her termination for just cause.

The employer had terminated the appellant after she submitted a claim for benefits under the employer's health insurance plan in the name of a 'phantom beneficiary'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or the conclusion that termination was a proportional response to the misconduct.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent.

The appellant alleged that the respondent was liable for a fraud perpetrated by his son because they had previously been in business together and the son used a bank account associated with that business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent had any knowledge of or participated in the alleged fraud, and agreeing with the motion judge that the case put against the respondent was entirely speculative.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent regarding a loan.

The respondent had provided evidence of the loan, an amortization schedule, and a record of payments.

The appellants admitted to the loan but claimed they made additional payments by cash and cheque, which were unsupported by receipts.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge carefully analyzed the evidence and correctly concluded that the appellants failed to put their best foot forward.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for offences including robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault.

The trial judge had erred by failing to apply the five-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 344(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Despite this error, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to interfere with the sentence.

The Court noted the respondent's youth, the co-offender's sentence, and fresh evidence demonstrating substantial rehabilitative gains during his time in the reformatory system.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young child, arguing that the trial judge gave inadequate reasons, reached an unreasonable verdict, misapprehended evidence concerning opportunity and post-incident circumstances, and misapplied the W.(D.) framework.

The court held that, although brief, the reasons were sufficient when read in the context of the evidence and submissions, and adequately disclosed why the trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the denial evidence.

The court further held that the verdict was supported by the record, no material misapprehension of evidence was shown, and the trial judge properly applied the criminal burden of proof and the W.(D.) principles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order recognizing and enforcing a $3,000,000 California judgment against him in Ontario.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal to argue the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge's prior order refusing the evidence was not appealed.

The court found no reason to interfere with the motion judge's application of the Beals v. Saldanha test for recognizing foreign judgments.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge identified and applied the correct three-part test and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed on all elements.

It was not in the interest of justice to set aside the default judgment.

The appellant purchased a pre-construction commercial condominium unit and later discovered a large concrete pillar bisecting the glass storefront.

He refused to close and sought rescission, arguing the pillar was an undisclosed material change under the Condominium Act because the draft plans depicted the storefront as a straight line.

The trial judge found no material change, as the straight line did not represent construction materials.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the plans were schematic and not intended to provide structural details.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike the pleadings against CIBC for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent bank amounts owing on a mortgage and line of credit, leave to issue a writ of possession, and dismissing their counterclaim.

The appellants admitted indebtedness but argued they had an arrangement with the respondent's employees to make mortgage payments using funds from a third-party loan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the appellants led no evidence to contradict the respondent's evidence of default, including property tax arrears.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties, comprising approximately 175 lenders, brought a motion to reopen a previously dismissed motion for leave to appeal.

The original motion for leave was brought by the appellants regarding an Ontario Securities Commission decision that found they traded securities without registration and ordered disgorgement.

The lenders argued they were not given notice of the leave motion and had a right to be heard on the disgorgement remedy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to reopen, finding the lenders were not 'affected' by the order dismissing leave under rule 27.14, as the regulatory proceedings were not civil proceedings designed to compensate them directly.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at CAMH with a condition allowing him to live in approved community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered the relevant criteria, including the appellant's liberty interest, and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to ensure CAMH could approve his housing as the safest first step for reintegration.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment dismissing their application for a refund of $13,000 plus interest.

The respondent argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal agreed and quashed the appeal, holding that under s. 19(1.2)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a final order dismissing a claim for less than $50,000 lies to the Divisional Court.

The moving party sought to set aside an order denying an extension of time to appeal a trial judgment that dismissed a breach of contract claim regarding a ceiling height deficiency.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim because the plaintiffs sued the wrong corporate entity and refused to amend their pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the previous orders and concluding that the justice of the case did not require an extension of time.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

Prior to the determination of the appeal, the parties reached a settlement.

In accordance with the agreed terms of settlement, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs of $5,000 to the plaintiff respondent and $5,000 to the other respondents.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, misapprehended the evidence, and applied an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons permitted meaningful appellate review and properly assessed the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's police statement.

The appellant appealed a sentence of indeterminate detention following a dangerous offender designation.

He argued the trial judge erred in concluding there was no reasonable possibility of eventually controlling his risk in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion was firmly grounded in the evidence, noting the appellant committed the predicate offence while on conditional release.