Stephen T. Goudge

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition, arguing that the extradition judge's refusal to grant an adjournment to allow him to seek court-appointed counsel violated the principles of fundamental justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the extradition judge properly balanced the necessary factors, including the history of the proceeding, the lack of legal complexity, and the overwhelming case for committal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He conceded the trial judge correctly stated the law but argued the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding ample evidence to sustain the conclusion based on the circumstances leading up to a phone call and the clear language the appellant used with an undercover officer.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant was already serving an eight-year penitentiary term, had a substantial prior record, and the offence was serious and related to a police officer doing his job.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was aware of the complainant's shortcomings as a witness but reasonably accepted the fundamental point of her evidence that the appellant punched her in the head.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), was granted an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown appealed, which automatically suspended the absolute discharge under s. 672.75 of the Criminal Code, reverting the applicant to a conditional discharge.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the automatic suspension.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motion and found that s. 672.75 violates ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter by depriving the NCR accused of liberty without due process and arbitrarily detaining them.

The violations were not saved by s. 1.

The court declared the offending words in s. 672.75 of no force and effect, suspended for 12 months.

The appellants succeeded on a limitation issue in a class action appeal and sought costs for the appeal and the motion below.

The Court of Appeal declined to alter the motion judge's order that costs of the motion remain in the cause.

For the appeal, the court recognized the appellants' success but modified the costs award because the appeal raised a novel issue of law and involved access to justice considerations in a class action.

The court awarded costs of the appeal in the cause, fixing them at $20,000 for the Timminco appellants, $20,000 for the Photon Consulting appellants, and $10,000 for the Walsh appellant.

The appellant marketing board appealed a trial decision finding the respondent abattoir was exempt from paying fees for 'barbecue' and extraprovincial hogs.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's order for an accounting regarding partially condemned hogs and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions based on the evidence and the parties' historical practices.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his motion for an order requiring the Family Responsibility Office to refrain from directing the suspension of his driver's licence.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot because the appellant's driver's licence had already been reinstated by a subsequent order.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal as moot, with no costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim on a Rule 21 motion, arguing the motion judge failed to consider whether the limitation period was tolled under s. 7 of the Limitations Act due to her mental and psychological condition.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statement of claim, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was statute-barred.

The order of the motion judge was set aside and the defendant's Rule 21 motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for illegal possession of handguns and breach of recognizance, arguing that the search warrant executed at his residence violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was based on an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip and was executed in the middle of the night.

The Court of Appeal held that the police had sufficiently corroborated the anonymous tip, including the appellant's criminal record and biographical details, to justify the warrant.

The Court also found the nighttime search reasonable given the risk to public safety and the presence of other occupants in the home.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to add a business and an individual as parties to her matrimonial litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the proposed parties were not necessary and proper because the appellant only sought a monetary equalization payment, not an interest in the business.

The appellants abandoned their appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned without costs.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred by failing to explain its rejection of a conditional discharge in its reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable.

The Court held that while it would have been better for the Board to explicitly explain its rejection of a conditional discharge, the omission was not a reversible error as there was no air of reality to such a disposition on the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and assault with a weapon against his former wife.

Mid-trial, it was discovered that defence counsel had previously consulted with the complainant about the incidents.

After receiving independent legal advice, the appellant waived the conflict and requested the trial continue.

The trial judge allowed the trial to proceed and later dismissed a post-conviction mistrial application.

The appellant appealed his convictions and his five-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the conflict of interest, as the appellant made an informed waiver and suffered no prejudice.

The court also upheld the sentence, declining to reduce it to avoid immigration consequences.

Two first party insurers paid statutory accident benefits to their insureds and made requests for loss transfer from second party insurers.

The second party insurers refused to pay, and the first party insurers initiated arbitration proceedings.

The second party insurers argued the claims were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the two-year limitation period for loss transfer claims begins to run the day after the first party insurer makes a demand for loss transfer, not from the date the second party insurer definitively refuses to indemnify.

The appeals by the first party insurers were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The young person appealed a finding of guilt for extortion.

The trial judge provided only half a page of analysis after a ten-day trial, failing to address significant inconsistencies in the evidence or specify which of the five alleged incidents constituted the extortion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and demonstrated a failure to consider the whole of the evidence.

The appellants appealed a judgment, arguing only one point regarding fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence would not have changed the result.

The amount in the fresh evidence was consistent with the internal allocation of payments found by the motion judge and did not affect the finding that interest was being paid on all three loans, which defeated the limitations defence.

The moving parties brought motions to quash appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the appeals were from interlocutory orders.

The Court of Appeal agreed with respect to the Dewan motion, finding the order appealed from did not finally dispose of any defences, and quashed that appeal.

For the Condominium motion, the Court found that most paragraphs of the order were interlocutory, except for one paragraph that removed a defence at trial, making it a final order.

The Condominium motion was allowed in part, quashing the appeal except for the final order paragraph.

Following the partial dismissal of an appeal and the remittal of a breach of contract issue for trial, the parties made written submissions on whether security should remain in place pending the trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the issue of security should be decided by the trial court.

The court ordered the security to remain in place for 60 days to allow the appellant to move for security in the trial court.

The appellants appealed three orders relating to a drainage dispute.

They challenged a finding of deliberate and wilful disregard of a prior order, the denial of an adjournment request, and the decision to proceed with a contempt motion rather than transferring the matter to the Drainage Referee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, finding ample evidence of non-compliance, no error in the exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment, and no error in addressing the contempt motion.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondents.