Stephen T. Goudge

The appellant estate appealed an order directing it to deliver shares owned by the husband to the wife's counsel for preservation and safekeeping under s. 12(b) of the Family Law Act.

The shares were already subject to a prior preservation order, which the husband breached by delivering them to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the order did not stay execution of the appellant's money judgment against the husband, nor did it constitute a collateral attack or determine priorities between the appellant and the wife.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that a robotic weld cell it designed and produced for the respondent was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to find an implied term in the contract requiring the respondent to provide pretacked assemblies within tolerances suitable for robotic welding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the contract documents and commercial realities placed the responsibility on the appellant, who had specialized expertise in robotic welding and knowledge of the respondent's facility.

The plaintiffs in two medical malpractice actions against a hospital and nurses retained an expert witness who had previously been employed by the hospital and had received confidential solicitor-client information regarding the defence of the actions.

The hospital successfully moved to have the plaintiffs' counsel removed from the record.

The plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the presumption that confidential information was imparted to the plaintiffs' counsel had not been rebutted, and that removal of counsel was the only appropriate remedy to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed the order of a motion judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed an order denying an adjournment and finding no good defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment and agreed that the appellant failed to show a good defence on the merits.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents were charged with sexual assault.

The trial judge stayed the charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 25-month delay from arrest to the scheduled trial date, attributing the delay beyond the Morin guidelines to the Crown's late disclosure.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to deduct 7.5 months for inherent time requirements and by isolating the delay in the Superior Court.

After deducting the intake period, the 17.5-month delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.

In an addendum to an appeal decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered costs of the appeal before the lower court judge to the appellants in the amount of $3,500 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

On the comment of all parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board erred in rejecting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of the request and reasonably determined that it was premature to reduce the restrictions on the appellant given his present circumstances.

The appellant appealed his custodial sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to properly consider a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the sentencing judge incorrectly concluded that only incarceration could satisfy the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation.

The Court noted that a properly fashioned conditional sentence can meet these objectives, and highlighted that the equally culpable co-accused received an 18-month conditional sentence despite having a prior record.

The appeal was allowed, and an 18-month conditional sentence was substituted for the youthful first-time offender.

The appellant appealed three convictions and his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in accepting the daughter's evidence as corroboration of the complainant being pushed down the stairs, disbelieving his evidence regarding his knowledge of the assault, and finding his evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the conviction appeals.

Leave to appeal the sentence was denied.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence when rejecting his testimony.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusions regarding the appellant's credibility—specifically his characterization of his criminal record and his reasons for calling his mother—were supported by the transcript.

The trial judge's factual findings concerning knowledge and control of scales, cocaine residue, and guns were open to him on the record.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction regarding a prior altercation and by permitting cross-examination on his prior criminal record under a Corbett ruling.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no realistic danger of propensity reasoning regarding the prior altercation, which the defence had relied upon.

The Court also deferred to the trial judge's Corbett ruling, noting that clear limiting instructions were given to the jury regarding the prior convictions.

The mother, residing in Ontario, applied under the Family Law Act to vary a child support agreement made with the father, who resided in the United States.

The application judge varied the agreement, but the appeal judge set aside the order, finding the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act provided a complete code for such proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the mother's appeal, holding that the agreement was a domestic contract under the Family Law Act, the Ontario court had jurisdiction, and the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act provides an alternative process rather than displacing the Family Law Act.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on charges of conspiracy to traffic marijuana and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence of inconsistent witness statements, argued the Minister failed to consider prosecuting him in Canada under the Extradition Treaty, and challenged the Minister's refusal to seek return assurances or delay surrender pending Ontario civil forfeiture proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding the fresh evidence would not have altered the committal and the Minister's discretionary decisions were reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a boy left in his care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal regarding credibility assessments but applied the Kienapple principle to enter a conditional stay on the sexual assault conviction, as both charges shared the same factual and legal nexus.

The sentence appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the fresh evidence of the appellant's spouse's health issues did not justify a conditional sentence for such a serious breach of trust.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his O'Connor application for third-party police records relating to an alternate suspect, and in relying on prior consistent statements of the victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that counsel's bald assertion that the alternate suspect was the shooter was insufficient to meet the likely relevance threshold for the O'Connor application.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 12-year sentence was fit for a planned shooting in a public place by an offender with a related criminal record.

The appellant sued the supervising duty counsel at a family court, along with the court and its employees, claiming damages because he was prevented from filing a motion without notice.

The action against the court and employees was previously dismissed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the duty counsel, finding she merely explained the court staff's refusal to accept the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing there was no basis for legal liability.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment declaring that the parties had entered into a binding agreement for the sale of the appellant's interest in certain companies.

The appellant argued that the parties had not agreed on all essential terms and did not intend the agreement in principle to be binding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the unaddressed details were not essential terms and that there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the parties intended to be bound.

The moving parties brought a motion to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which refused an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

The moving parties had claimed at trial that they intended only to provide a character reference for the main borrowers, but the trial judge rejected their evidence.

Their appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the single judge that there was no basis for granting an extension of time, as the proposed leave motion raised only issues of credibility and had no chance of success.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.