Sharpe

Following the dismissal of an appeal and motions for leave to act as representative plaintiffs by objecting class members (Home Depot and Wal-Mart), the representative plaintiffs and several defendants sought costs.

The objecting class members argued they were immune from costs under s. 31(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction exists under ss. 14(1) and (2) to award costs against class members who unsuccessfully seek to represent the class to object to a settlement.

The court awarded costs to the moving parties, finding the delay in filing submissions was justified.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of child pornography.

He argued that his inculpatory statement to the police was involuntary due to an unrecorded period at the station and his utterances regarding bail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the statement was voluntary and not induced by police promises.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's strict pre-trial bail conditions as a mitigating factor.

The appellant abandoned her conviction appeal and appealed her sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in fixing the amount of the fine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the fine amount was supported by expert evidence regarding the company's banking records and the appellant's own admission of theft.

The appellants, environmental groups, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their judicial review application challenging the vires of O. Reg. 176/13 under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The regulation provided exemptions from the Act's prohibitions.

The appellants argued the Minister failed to meet a statutory condition precedent by not considering the effect of the regulation on each individual species, and that the regulation's purpose was inconsistent with the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Minister properly considered the effect on each species and the regulation was not inconsistent with the Act's purpose.

The appellant father and respondent mother lived in Germany with their two children.

The mother brought the children to Ontario for a time-limited educational stay with the father's consent.

When the consent period expired, the mother refused to return the children to Germany.

The application judge ordered the children's return under the Hague Convention, finding their habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision, finding the habitual residence had changed to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that a parent cannot unilaterally change a child's habitual residence during a time-limited consensual stay, and ordered the children returned to Germany.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment finding it owed a duty of care to a class of tenants to provide statutory notices of rent reductions following property tax decreases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipality's specific interactions with the tenants through a pilot project created sufficient relational proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care.

The court further found no residual policy reasons to negate this duty, as the claim was limited to a specific group and did not conflict with the municipality's statutory obligations.

The municipality's failure to send the required notices breached the standard of care.

The appellants appealed their convictions for second degree murder and obstruction of justice.

The primary grounds of appeal related to the reasonableness of the verdict, the trial judge's refusal to admit third-party suspect evidence, jury instructions on out-of-court statements and identification evidence, and alleged Crown misconduct during cross-examination and closing addresses.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Crown's conduct fell below the expected standard of propriety, the trial judge's strong corrective instructions were sufficient to cure the damage and preserve the right to a fair trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision finding that its declaration required the costs of waste disposal for the food court seating area to be paid as common expenses by all unit owners, rather than solely by the food court unit owners.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the declaration.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the application judge erred by effectively excusing the food court unit owners from paying for the disposal of their own individual unit wastes, contrary to an express provision in the declaration.

The issue of individual unit waste disposal costs was remitted to the application judge.

The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an underinsured taxi.

The plaintiffs and their insurer, the appellant, sued the respondent municipality, alleging it negligently failed to enforce its taxi licensing by-law which required $1,000,000 in liability coverage.

The trial judge found the municipality owed a duty of care but did not breach the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipality did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs, as the claim was for pure economic loss and lacked sufficient proximity.

Furthermore, the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the municipality met the standard of care.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee $500,000 in damages for non-delivery of shares pursuant to an employment contract.

The appellant argued there was no evidence of the shares' liquidity to support the valuation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the liquidity issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the appellant had called no evidence at trial.

The court upheld the trial judge's reliance on the respondent's testimony regarding the company's value and the adverse inference drawn against the appellant for failing to call its president to testify.

The respondent, a union president, commenced a representative action claiming the appellant employer failed to provide employees with their share of employment insurance premium reductions under the Employment Insurance Act.

The employer moved to dismiss the action, arguing exclusive jurisdiction lay with a labour arbitrator.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, relying on previous case law.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not properly applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Weber and Parry Sound.

The Court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement, as informed by the substantive rights in the Employment Insurance Act, giving an arbitrator exclusive jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed and the action stayed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The amicus curiae argued the appeal judge improperly considered the appellant's subsequent involuntary patient status, the Board's decision was unreasonable, and the appellant was denied a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appeal judge only used the subsequent status as background, there was ample evidence of the appellant's inability to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decisions due to delusions, and any curtailment of cross-examination was on tangential matters.

The Catholic entities appealed an order allowing residential school survivors to archive their Independent Assessment Process (IAP) documents with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation without the consent of alleged perpetrators.

Canada cross-appealed, arguing the IAP documents were government records subject to federal archiving and privacy legislation and could not be destroyed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that only claimants have the right to decide whether to archive their documents.

The Court further held that the IAP documents are not government records because they are not under government control, and upheld the supervising judge's order to destroy the documents after a 15-year retention period to protect the claimants' privacy and confidentiality.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judge's decision to retroactively vary a 2005 final support order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The trial judge had eliminated substantial support arrears and ordered the wife to repay over $113,000 to the respondent husband, based on a finding that the husband's income had decreased prior to the 2005 order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trial judge erred in principle by relying on pre-order circumstances and effectively rewarding the husband for his failure to make financial disclosure in 2005.

Applying the S. (D.B.) and P. (L.M.) principles, the Court found the husband's subsequent income reduction constituted a material change, but limited the retroactive relief due to his delay and non-disclosure.

The Court reinstated the child support arrears for the daughter, terminated child support for the son as of December 2010, and terminated spousal support as of January 2012, relieving the wife of any repayment obligation.

The appellant appealed a committal order under the Extradition Act, arguing the committal judge erred in refusing to order particulars of the conspiracy in the authority to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the authority to proceed complied with s. 15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, which does not require the Minister of Justice to provide particulars of the corresponding Canadian offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on how to assess the credibility of the complainant, who was 12 at the time of the events and 17 at trial.

The trial judge instructed the jury that they were considering 'the memory of a 12 year old'.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held this instruction was an error in law as it could have confused the jury into assessing the complainant's credibility on non-peripheral matters as if she were 12 years old.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant receiver sought to appeal an interlocutory order refusing to cancel a letter of credit posted as security in a civil action.

The receiver argued the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s. 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because the motion was styled in both the civil action and the receivership proceedings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the substance of the order was a refusal to vary an order in a civil action, not an order in bankruptcy proceedings.

The proper route of appeal was to the Divisional Court with leave.

The respondent acted as an agent to assist a client in collecting insurance proceeds, agreeing to a percentage fee.

To resolve issues with clearing cheques, the appellant solicitor agreed to have the insurance cheques made payable to his firm in trust and provided an undertaking to protect the respondent's fee.

The appellants argued the undertaking applied only to a single payment and was given on behalf of the client, not personally.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the undertaking extended to future payments and was a personal promise of the solicitor, dismissing the appeal.

The parties reached a settlement in principle regarding the bankruptcy proposal of Enroute Imports Inc. but required time to finalize specific terms.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal on consent, to be restored to the list if the settlement was not finalized by December 23, 2015.