Simmons J.A.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder in the strangulation death of his intimate partner.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in leaving planned and deliberate murder with the jury, as there was no air of reality to the element of deliberation.

While there was an air of reality to constructive first-degree murder based on unlawful confinement, the Court found that the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Trial counsel's decision to call a forensic psychiatrist, whose evidence introduced highly prejudicial statements by the appellant about his intent to kill, fell below the standard of reasonableness and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for breach of restrictive covenants in its contracts with the respondent independent contractors.

The trial judge had found the covenants were not brought to the attention of the respondents, were unenforceable, and that damages were not proven.

Because the appellant did not appeal the finding concerning damages, the Court of Appeal found no basis to set aside the trial judge's order and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order regarding disclosure and examination of garnishees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory rather than final, as it did not dispose of the appellants' rights on a final basis.

Costs of $8,500 were awarded to the garnishees on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim under Rule 21.01 based on the expiry of a limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred because a plaintiff is not obligated to plead discoverability until a statement of defence pleading a limitation period is delivered.

The court also clarified that the exception allowing a claim to be struck for a limitation period prior to a defence is confined to cases with no legal or factual complexities.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision refusing to set aside a noting of default.

The motion judge had considered the appellant's failure to comply with an outstanding production order, which could prejudice the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

Furthermore, the Court held that Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply because the respondents had obtained an order to proceed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants, representative plaintiffs in a class action alleging auditor negligence, appealed the dismissal of their motion under Rule 30.10(1) for production of investigation documents from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, a non-party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that it would not be unfair for the appellants to proceed to trial without the documents.

Although the Court found the motion judge erred in concluding the documents were protected by case-by-case privilege under the Wigmore criteria, the appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish the unfairness requirement of Rule 30.10(1).

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

Alternatively, he argued the Board erred in failing to grant a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion regarding the threat to public safety.

The Court also held that a conditional discharge was unavailable because the appellant required supervised housing approved by the person in charge.