Sarah E. Pepall

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old youth who was found guilty of sexual interference with a 13-year-old intoxicated girl.

The trial judge imposed 24 months probation with 120 hours of community service.

The Crown sought leave to appeal and argued the trial judge erred in finding the offence was not a violent offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and in treating the victim's willing participation as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit despite the trial judge's legal errors regarding the victim's participation and the provision of birth control.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding the respondent over $1.5 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge declined to put certain jury questions proposed by the appellants regarding causation and apportionment of damages between three successive motor vehicle accidents.

The appellants also challenged the trial judge's summary of evidence and her failure to instruct the jury to disregard expert evidence concerning past income loss.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to jury questions and instructions, and finding the jury's damage award was not plainly unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether Seabrook Bros.

Mechanical Ltd., a subcontractor and lien claimant, was entitled to a revised assessed value for its security in the insolvency proposal of North House Foods Ltd. The court held that there was no appeal as of right under s. 193(a)-(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, but granted leave to appeal under s. 193(e) due to the importance of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, as the motion judge had not erred in finding that the appellant's security (a lien on a leasehold interest) had no realizable value in the circumstances.

The court clarified the onus on dissatisfied creditors under s. 50.1(4) of the BIA and the limited recourse for lien claimants in insolvency.

The moving party, Stephen Moranis, sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal in a long-running dispute with the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) and others regarding access to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) system and alleged breaches of a settlement agreement.

The Court reviewed the procedural history, including multiple actions, settlements, and motions, and applied the established factors for granting extensions of time.

While expressing reservations about the merits of the appeal, the Court granted a limited extension to August 1, 2025, finding no prejudice to the respondents and that the justice of the case warranted the extension.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Gurnam Multani and Surjit Multani from the orders of Justice William S. Chalmers.

The appellants had signed forbearance agreements acknowledging the amounts owing under several loans from Dramel Limited.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s reliance on the forbearance agreements to confirm the amounts outstanding and held that the fees charged did not contravene the Interest Act.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.

The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).

The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.

The appellants appealed an order giving directions regarding the distribution of funds remaining in trust after the sale of Driftwood Beach Park Limited's assets and the reimbursement of funds by certain appellants to the company.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s determinations, including findings regarding the purchase and customization of a 2022 Honda, salary for James Kemp, and compensation for Ms. Kemp.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal regarding damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The trial judge’s reliance on established authority and acceptance of the respondent’s evidence was upheld.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of damages or credibility findings and awarded costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether its prior decision in Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner should be overruled.

That case had interpreted s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act to require a charitable, non-profit philanthropic corporation seeking a municipal tax exemption to show it provided relief to the poor by "some form of endeavour." The appellant, Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc., argued that this requirement was not supported by the statute or legislative intent.

The Court agreed, finding that Religious Hospitallers was wrongly decided, had not been followed in subsequent jurisprudence, and introduced a vague and unworkable "endeavour" requirement.

The Court overruled Religious Hospitallers, clarified the applicable test for exemption, and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a property tax exemption for its affordable housing properties.

The appellant, Igor Kononenko, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge’s treatment of prior consistent statements, the use of the complainant’s out-of-court utterances, and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s approach to the evidence or reasoning, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, Jason Windebank, appealed his designation as a Dangerous Offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence following convictions for violent offences against his domestic partner.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge’s errors were immaterial, that Gladue principles were sufficiently considered, and that the judge properly exercised her discretion in imposing an indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Barbara Lang-Newlands regarding the operation of the automatic stay under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following a family law trial judgment.

The court addressed whether certain monetary awards (post-separation adjustments) should be characterized as support and thus exempt from the stay, and whether the stay should be lifted or maintained on various payments pending appeal.

The court declined to recharacterize the payments as support, but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on Ian Newlands' obligation to pay post-separation adjustments, given the risk that Barb would not recover the funds if the stay remained.

The court ordered Barb to pay Ian the net difference and expedited the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Arista Homes Limited's appeal from a summary judgment awarding Ellen De Castro eight months’ salary in lieu of notice following her dismissal without cause.

The court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the employment contract’s for-cause termination clause was unenforceable because it contravened the Employment Standards Act, 2000 by permitting termination without notice in circumstances broader than the statute allows.

The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the ESA and the interpretive principle that ambiguities in employment contracts are to be resolved in favour of employees.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Danjing Han, setting aside a trial judgment that had awarded the respondents $302,000 for civil deceit and unjust enrichment.

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred in relying solely on admissions in the Statement of Defence to establish liability, without making any factual findings or determining the elements of the causes of action.

The court concluded that the admissions did not amount to admissions of liability and that the respondents had not met their burden of proof.

The appellant appealed an order striking his amended statement of claim and dismissing his action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The underlying action involved allegations of water infiltration from neighbouring properties caused by the respondents' excavation of a trench, installation of a drainage ditch, and engineering of water drainage into a culvert.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by treating multiple distinct instances of alleged tortious conduct as a single event.

Reading the pleadings generously, it was not plain and obvious that all claims were statute-barred, highlighting the desirability of waiting until pleadings are closed before bringing a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion on limitation issues.

The appellant, who speaks Taishanese and has no English language capability, was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, he argued that his right to an interpreter under section 14 of the Charter was breached because the interpreter provided for the first half of his trial interpreted in Cantonese rather than Taishanese.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence confirming the linguistic differences between the two languages and the interpreter's use of Cantonese.

The Court found that the interpretation fell below the constitutionally guaranteed standard, creating a real possibility that the appellant did not understand the proceedings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The self-represented moving party sought a panel review of an appeal management direction in a high-conflict family matter.

The direction had imposed a deadline for ordering transcripts and affirmed the requirement that documents be filed in English.

The Court of Appeal stayed the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it frivolous and vexatious.

The court noted that panel reviews of appeal management directions are not explicitly permitted and that the motion was premature, as the moving party could still seek relief from transcript requirements by bringing a motion for directions to the appeal management judge.

Following an appeal in a class proceeding, the parties and the Law Foundation of Ontario made a joint submission regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement reached in open court regarding an estate and property dispute.

He argued the settlement should be set aside due to unconscionability, mutual mistake, and misrepresentation, claiming he did not understand the terms and was tricked by his former counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the test for unconscionability and concluding there was ample evidence that the appellant, who was represented by counsel, understood and agreed to the settlement.

The moving party sought a panel review of a single judge's order dismissing her motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal, acting on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.02, dismissed the motion for panel review as an abuse of process.

The court noted the moving party's history of bringing meritless motions and attempting to re-litigate settled issues, concluding this was the clearest of cases warranting a Rule 2.1 dismissal.

The moving party was also prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave.