Sarah E. Pepall

The appellants appealed an order that included a final declaration regarding the applicability of the Repair and Storage Liens Act, which was made during an interlocutory motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the declaration was not intended to be a final determination and deprived the appellants of a substantive defence at a preliminary stage.

Despite procedural errors by the appellants, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration in the interest of justice, but awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's careful and clear analysis of the issues.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellants appealed an order granting a permanent injunction that restrained them from dumping fill or altering the grade of their property.

They argued the application judge erred in finding their activity was not a 'normal farm practice' and in not deferring to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's factual findings were supported by ample evidence and that he had jurisdiction to grant the injunction since neither party had applied to the Board.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing its unjust enrichment claim for disgorgement of the respondents' profits.

The appellant argued that if a settlement agreement between the parties was found unenforceable under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, it should be entitled to disgorgement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's deprivation could not exceed damages calculated under section 8, which do not include disgorgement.

Furthermore, the regulatory scheme provided a valid juristic reason for the respondents' profits, precluding the unjust enrichment claim.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim, which was found to be commenced outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

He argued the motions judge erred by not finding the limitation period was tolled due to fraudulent concealment by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that there was no basis in the evidence for the fraudulent concealment claim, as the lack of disclosure was immaterial and the appellant was a party to the telephone call he alleged was concealed.

The respondent corporation pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after a swing stage collapsed at a construction site, killing four workers.

The sentencing judge imposed a fine of $200,000, relying on the range of fines under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the corporation's ability to pay.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the sentencing judge erred by relying on regulatory fine ranges that do not reflect the higher moral blameworthiness of criminal negligence, and by treating the corporation's ability to pay as a statutory prerequisite.

The Court increased the fine to $750,000 to properly reflect the gravity of the offence and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The appellants, representing members of a church congregation who voted to leave the Anglican Diocese of Huron due to theological differences, appealed a trial decision declaring that the diocese held the church property and a charitable foundation in trust for the static parish, not the departing members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that 'parish' refers to a static entity that continues in perpetuity regardless of changes in membership, and that the departing members could not take the property with them.

The Court also allowed the diocese's cross-appeal on costs, finding that the costs judge erred in ordering each party to bear its own costs to promote harmony, and awarded $100,000 in costs to the diocese.

Following dismissal of a large class action brought by a class of pilots against another class of pilots alleging economic torts, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation, the successful defendants sought $1.5 million in costs.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors under Rule 57.01, as well as s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Although the proceeding involved unusual procedural features including a defendant class and lengthy litigation history, the court found it was primarily a private commercial dispute and not a test case or matter of public interest.

Despite the defendants’ success and their settlement offers, the court determined that aspects of the defendants’ conduct in their dealings with the plaintiffs justified denying them costs.

Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.

The appellant appealed two orders dismissing and adjourning its application for an interpretation of an Ontario Regulation regarding the 2008 remuneration of Justices of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proper mechanism to challenge the government's response to a remuneration commission's recommendation is through judicial review on a standard of rationality, not by seeking an interpretation of the implementing Regulation.

The appellant law firm acted for the purchaser in a commercial real estate transaction.

After closing, the purchaser discovered a 0.3 metre reserve on the property that required a significant cost recovery payment to the municipality for road access.

The purchaser successfully sued the law firm for negligence.

On appeal, the law firm challenged the negligence finding and the dismissal of its cross-claim against the vendor for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the law firm failed to properly investigate the access issues raised by the reserve, and that the vendor had no legal or equitable obligation to disclose the unregistered cost recovery agreement.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute discharge.

The Board concluded he remained a significant threat because there was a significant risk he would stop taking his medication if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $2,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was clearly moot and involved no issue that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to hear it anyway.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant owed the respondent bank approximately $275,000 on various accounts and defaulted.

The bank obtained summary judgment.

The appellant appealed, arguing he had paid the debt by presenting an instrument drawn on an account with no funds, which the bank mistakenly credited before it was dishonoured.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial as the debt had not been paid.

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge declining to reinstate the proceeding.

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

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $750.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearms offences after police found guns in a duffle bag at his mother's house.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by admitting a recanting witness's videotaped statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, by improperly using his pre-trial silence to reject his testimony, and by entering multiple convictions for the same delict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the convictions, finding the hearsay statement met threshold reliability and the trial judge did not rely on pre-trial silence.

However, the court applied the Kienapple principle to enter conditional stays on several duplicate counts.

The appellants, who were subjects of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigation, sued the CRA, the Attorney General, and various investigators for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and negligence after criminal charges against them were discharged or stayed.

The motion judge struck most of the claims for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the malicious prosecution and Family Law Act claims, but reinstated the claims for abuse of process and negligence against the CRA investigators, finding it was not plain and obvious that CRA investigators do not owe a duty of care to suspects under investigation.

The respondent sought weekly benefits from the appellant insurer pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule 1990.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the respondent sued for past and ongoing benefits, including interest on overdue amounts under s. 24(4).

The insurer brought a motion to determine whether s. 24(4) provides for simple or compound interest.

The motion judge found it provides for compound interest, and the insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 24(4) unambiguously provides for compound interest when read in its entire context and harmoniously with the legislative scheme.

The appellant appealed his manslaughter conviction, arguing the proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process due to the misconduct of a forensic pathologist and the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario.

The appellant had previously been convicted of murder based on the pathologist's flawed pediatric forensic pathology evidence, a conviction later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal held that while the state actors' misconduct was egregious and fell within the residual category of abuse of process, a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

Balancing the interests, the court found that a trial on the merits was appropriate given the serious nature of the allegations of chronic physical child abuse and the fact that the systemic issues had since been addressed.