Sarah E. Pepall

The appellants appealed from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice granting the respondent's motion to amend her statement of claim in a Simplified Rules action.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as interlocutory orders fall within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court with leave.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Homeowners appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their motion for a declaration that the respondents breached a Minutes of Settlement and granting the respondents declaratory relief enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The motion judge found that the respondents had complied with the Minutes of Settlement based on evidence that the work had been completed, including HVAC work, plumbing obligations, and permit closures.

The appellants advanced numerous grounds of appeal, all of which were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a Toronto property.

The respondent sought to purchase the property for $4.5 million but the transaction failed to close on the scheduled date.

The central issue was whether the appellant's conduct in providing an altered estoppel certificate and delivering the correct certificate only one hour before the 6:00 p.m. closing deadline precluded it from relying on the time-of-the-essence clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellant's misconduct prevented it from enforcing the strict closing deadline and that specific performance was an appropriate remedy.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a six-day trial.

He raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge improperly relied on the complainant's absence of motive to lie in assessing her credibility; and second, that the trial judge impermissibly allowed a speculative theory that the complainant had been drugged with GHB into the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding that the trial judge's analysis of the absence of motive was consistent with established precedent and that the GHB issue, while arising from defence counsel's error, did not compromise trial fairness or affect the conviction, which was based on the complainant's credibility and corroborating evidence.

Two consolidated appeals concerning insurance coverage and the duty to defend.

The application judge found that The Guarantee Company of North America and The Co-operators General Insurance Company had a duty to defend Ryan Reeb in an underlying negligence action, and ordered that three insurers (including Royal & Sun Alliance) share defence costs equally on a going-forward basis.

The appellants challenged the orders on grounds of limitation periods and contractual restrictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, upholding the application judge's reasoning that the duty to defend is an ongoing obligation applied on a rolling basis, that the limitation period does not bar claims for prospective costs, and that the equal cost-sharing arrangement was properly determined.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for killing his uncle.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the Crown had misrepresented the mens rea required for murder by suggesting the jury could convict if the appellant "ought to have known" his actions would cause death.

Although the trial judge provided correct instructions on the law, his inadequate response to the jury's question about "ought to know" and his erroneous definition of recklessness created a real danger that the jury did not properly understand that subjective foresight of death was required.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a commercial bakery, appealed a summary judgment dismissal of its insurance claim against Intact Insurance Company for losses resulting from a power outage caused by an ice storm in December 2013.

The losses claimed included stock spoilage and business interruption.

The motion judge found that exclusionary clauses in the insurance policy precluded coverage because the loss or damage to electrical transmission lines or distribution lines was not located on the appellant's premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the policy and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding partial summary judgment principles and the need for expert evidence.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court decision dismissing his second motion to change an order relating to support and arrears.

The appellant had failed to make any support payments or pay costs orders from trial or appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's dismissal of the motion, finding that the appellant's unyielding failure to comply with outstanding orders warranted dismissal under the Family Law Rules.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the City of Toronto lacked party status, confirming that as assignee of support payments, the City maintained party status to the extent of its financial interests.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a young woman with an intellectual disability.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence reliable and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the majority held that the trial judge's reasons were deficient in several respects: the trial judge failed to adequately address the complainant's reliability, particularly her heightened suggestibility as established by expert evidence; the trial judge appeared to find the complainant's evidence self-corroborating when it was not; and the trial judge failed to explain why the defence evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The majority concluded these deficiencies, taken together, foreclosed meaningful appellate review and set aside the conviction, ordering a new trial.

The dissent argued the trial judge's reasons were adequate and that the trial judge was clearly alive to the reliability issues.

An NCR accused appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretionary community living privileges.

The appellant argued he posed no significant risk to public safety, citing 15 years without violent behaviour, and sought an absolute discharge or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly considered all relevant factors under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his mental illness, lack of insight, substance abuse issues, and criminal history.

The court emphasized that absence of violent behaviour does not eliminate risk of serious psychological harm, and that Part XX.1 is designed to protect public safety before violence occurs.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she posed no significant risk to public safety based on the absence of violent behaviour since 2015 and abstention from substance abuse since 2016.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the Board properly applied the test under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that evidence supported a finding of significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that absence of recent violent behaviour eliminated risk, noting that the appellant's stability was contingent on the structured hospital environment and that relapse into substance abuse and medication non-compliance would likely result in psychotic symptoms and violent behaviour.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault by a judge sitting alone.

The complainant alleged that on October 16, 1992, after a night of drinking, she awoke to find the appellant having intercourse with her.

DNA evidence established that the appellant was the father of the complainant's child, confirming intercourse had occurred.

The central issue at trial was whether the complainant had consented.

The appellant argued the trial judge relied on a Crown misstatement of evidence regarding similar language used by both parties about the sexual act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from four years to three years, finding the trial judge had improperly treated the appellant's absence of remorse as an aggravating factor.

Three appellants appealed their convictions for a September 2015 bank robbery and related offences.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from a witness with bipolar disorder and a permanent brain injury who had given a police statement while in custody.

The appellants challenged the admissibility and reliability of her evidence, arguing she was merely reading from her police statement rather than testifying from refreshed memory, and that a Vetrovec warning should have been given.

The trial judge found her evidence reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence including DNA evidence and surveillance footage.

The appellants also sought to introduce the witness's criminal record as fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions and dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and grounded in evidence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her certiorari application seeking to quash the order committing her to trial on drug-related charges.

The appellant argued that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error due to the absence of evidence, particularly regarding timing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer knowledge and control of contraband found in locked rooms, including circumstantial evidence such as sole ownership of the house, items in plain view, mail addressed to the appellant, and intercepted communications with her co-accused spouse.

The court held that the lack of precise timing evidence did not render the inferences speculative.

The appellant was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and three firearm offences arising from an incident at an after-hours restaurant where the appellant allegedly fired a gun twice inside the establishment and then shot the victim in the stomach and hand upon exit.

The central issue at trial was identification.

Three witnesses recanted prior statements to police in which they had identified the appellant, but the trial judge admitted the prior statements as hearsay evidence based on procedural reliability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable and the trial judge properly instructed the jury on identification evidence and post-offence conduct.

The appellant's sentence of 12 years global (8 years for aggravated assault, 4 years concurrent for careless use of firearm, 4 years consecutive for pointing firearm, 4 years concurrent for possession of weapon, less 32 months pre-sentence custody credit) was upheld as fit.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal of a wrongful dismissal case.

The appellant insurance company sought to reduce the respondent employee's damages by challenging the reasonable notice period and bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the notice period but dismissing other arguments.

The respondent sought clarification on bonus entitlements and the parties exchanged submissions on costs.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments raised by the appellant at the costs stage and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a conviction for two counts of human trafficking and one count of assault.

The trial judge admitted two video-recorded statements of the complainant after she recanted at trial.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting the statements and provided insufficient reasons for rejecting the complainant's trial testimony.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the admission of the statements and determining that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained why the prior statements were accepted and the trial testimony rejected.

This appeal concerns a financial dispute among adult siblings over entitlement to distributions from a valuable investment in a residential development in Oakville, Ontario.

The investment, originally a 10% interest in the Lower Fourth Joint Venture purchased by the father in 1969, was held by the mother in trust for three children in equal shares.

The daughter disclaimed her interest for tax reasons.

When distributions began in 2014, they were deposited into bank accounts opened in the mother's name.

The central issue was whether the mother held the distributions as bare trustee for the daughter or whether the daughter had received only individual gifts.

The Court of Appeal found that a bare trust existed over the bank account contents for the benefit of both the daughter and one son in equal shares, reversing the trial judge's finding that the mother held the funds beneficially.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated September 14, 2018, which ordered his detention at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Board erred in law or acted unreasonably in declining to impose a conditional discharge.

The appellant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder with no insight into his condition, a pattern of medication noncompliance and substance abuse, and would not voluntarily return to hospital if requested.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's decision and upheld the detention order, noting that the need to supervise housing and permit quick readmission if necessary are relevant considerations in determining whether a conditional discharge is appropriate.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's December 27, 2018 disposition ordering his detention on a forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with specified privileges.

The appellant contended that the Board departed from a joint submission of the parties by rejecting his request for community privileges accompanied by an approved person, and that he was denied procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that no joint submission was made and that the Board's decision requiring staff accompaniment was amply supported by evidence of the appellant's history of violence, hallucinations, and medication non-compliance, as well as the opinion of his treating psychiatrist.