Sarah E. Pepall

The appellant pleaded guilty to offences related to a large-scale marijuana grow operation and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias through comments about ethnicity and erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal condemned the trial judge's stereotypical comments about ethnicity but upheld the custodial sentence, noting conditional sentences are rarely appropriate for large-scale commercial grow operations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal to correct a mathematical error the trial judge made when calculating the sentence reduction for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 10 months' imprisonment.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing the trial verdict was unreasonable.

The conviction arose from a domestic dispute where the appellant held a knife in his wife's direction while demanding money, an event witnessed by their son.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding no clear error or question of law of general significance, as there was direct evidence supporting the conviction.

The father brought a motion for civil contempt against the mother regarding a consent access order.

The motion judge found the contempt was not established but set aside the access order.

The mother appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent, finding that contempt is a remedy of last resort and the father should have sought to vary or enforce the order instead.

The court held the motion judge erred in setting aside the order without a contempt finding or under parens patriae jurisdiction.

The original access order was reinstated with temporary modifications.

Following an appeal in a family law matter where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the costs of the appeal.

Applying the Family Law Rules for guidance, the court awarded the respondent $25,000 in costs, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

The court also ordered that the costs award be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

The court declined to address the costs of the underlying motion, noting that leave to appeal was required.

The appellant, a caregiver for an elderly man, was convicted of fraud and theft after withdrawing approximately $180,000 from his bank account over several years.

She was also convicted of defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs.

She was sentenced to 20 months in custody, two years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred in finding she controlled the victim, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the restitution order failed to consider her ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions reasonable and the restitution order appropriate given the amounts taken and the modest payment schedule imposed.

The respondent was assaulted by two unknown men in a parking lot, forced into his vehicle, and assaulted further before being abandoned.

As the assailants drove away, they ran over his foot.

The respondent claimed statutory accident benefits and indemnity coverage from his automobile insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were caused by the assaults, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The motion judge dismissed the insurer's motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the assaults were intervening acts independent of the vehicle's use, breaking the chain of causation.

Summary judgment was granted to the insurer for all claims except those relating to the foot injury, which required a trial.

The City of Toronto appealed a Divisional Court order certifying a class proceeding brought by a rooming house tenant.

The plaintiff alleged the City negligently failed to deliver statutorily-mandated rent reduction notices to tenants targeted by the Parkdale Pilot Project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no private law duty of care to this specific subgroup of tenants, and that policy considerations would not inevitably negate such a duty.

The appellant mother brought a motion for directions regarding her appeals of two interlocutory orders made in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent children's aid society brought a counter-motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals because the orders were interlocutory and were made under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act at a family court branch, meaning any appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

The mother's motion was dismissed and the appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The respondent lessor sued the appellant lessee for damages arising from an oil spill from an above-ground storage tank.

The appellant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to determine whether the commercial lease contained a covenant by the respondent to insure against the loss, which would bar the action.

The motion judge found no such covenant and allowed the action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the jurisprudence was unsettled and it was not plain and obvious whether the lease contained such a covenant.

The court set aside the motion judge's determination on the covenant issue, leaving it for trial, but upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motion to dismiss the action.

The appellant bank sought to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel a third-party mortgagee to provide a mortgage discharge statement for property owned by judgment debtors.

The appellant argued that a previous binding decision was decided per incuriam.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the motion judge's order was interlocutory, as the appellant could still seek to examine a representative of the third party under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant was convicted of making, possessing, and distributing obscene material through his websites, which featured simulated explicit sex with violence.

He appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing errors in the admission of meta-tags, hyperlinks, written stories, and expert testimony, as well as deficiencies in the jury charge and a failure to grant a stay for delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and upholding the $28,000 fine as a fit sentence.

The appellant cement manufacturer proposed substituting alternative fuel derived from post-recycling and post-composting materials for conventional fossil fuel.

The respondent municipality argued this constituted a new land use as a 'waste disposal area' under its zoning by-law, requiring an amendment.

The application judge agreed with the municipality.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the productive use of these materials as fuel in an existing cement manufacturing process does not constitute dumping, destroying, or storing waste, and therefore does not create a new land use.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing he should have been granted an absolute discharge.

Amicus curiae raised additional issues regarding the fairness of the hearing, the Board's failure to resolve a treatment impasse with the Waypoint Centre, and the adequacy of the Board's reasons for dismissing the appellant's Charter arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court also held that the hearing was fair, the Board reasonably declined to order further treatment options given the appellant's refusal to participate, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested Charter remedies or order a transfer to a lesser security hospital.

An investor sued a discretionary portfolio manager and its representatives for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract after the manager failed to promptly diversify an inherited, highly concentrated equity portfolio heavily weighted in Nortel, BCE, and TD shares.

The court found the manager knew diversification was the client's objective but failed to implement it or clearly communicate any staged diversification strategy or associated risks.

The court held that maintaining the concentrated portfolio for several months without proper disclosure or client agreement breached the manager’s duties of care and contractual obligations.

However, individual defendants without trading authority were not liable.

Damages were assessed based on a diversified portfolio consistent with the client’s Investment Policy Statement.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the motion judge erred in her section 11(b) Charter analysis regarding unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her balancing of the prejudice to the appellant against the societal interest in having a trial.

The court noted that because it was a documents case, the possibility of fading memories was less significant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a designated dangerous offender, appealed the sentence of indeterminate detention.

The appellant argued that a lapse in hospital supervision demonstrated the disposition was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's ability to sexually assault a child during a brief evasion of supervision confirmed the appropriateness of the indeterminate detention disposition.

The court concluded there was no reason to believe the appellant could be controlled in the community.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the admissibility of his statements on the basis of alleged Charter breaches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's findings of fact.

The court held it was open to the trial judge to find the appellant was not detained during the early part of the search, the police were not required to reiterate his s. 10(b) rights, and he did not invoke his rights at the station.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on five gun-related charges.

The trial judge had excluded a seized firearm and a videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding the respondent was arbitrarily detained during a pretextual traffic stop contrary to s. 9, and his right to counsel was violated under s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding of a pretextual stop was a factual determination not subject to appellate review, and there was no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence under the Grant framework.

The appellants appealed their fraud convictions, arguing that a production order for bank documents violated their s. 8 Charter rights due to the non-disclosure of statutory declarations.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that while a s. 8 violation occurred regarding personal documents, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the officer's carelessness did not render the breach serious enough to warrant exclusion.

The court found the trial evidence overwhelming and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to challenge Ontario's jurisdiction and stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The respondent alleged the appellants conspired to defraud it of over $2,000,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that a presumptive connecting factor existed (a tort committed in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of a real and substantial connection.

The Court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.