Steve Anthony Banate Coroza

The appellant pled guilty to defrauding her employer of over $210,000 through fraudulent schemes and forgeries over several years.

She appealed her sentence of two years less a day, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's emphasis on the appellant's significant criminal record for similar offences and the need for specific and general deterrence, despite her guilty plea and full restitution.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering repayment of funds advanced by the respondent and dismissing the appellants' counterclaim for defamation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's grant of summary judgment on the loan claim, his rejection of the non est factum defence, or his dismissal of the defamation counterclaim.

However, the court found that the issue of reverse corporate veil piercing to impose liability on the corporate appellants was not properly before the motion judge and may not have been fairly argued.

The appeal was allowed in part: the judgment against the corporate appellants was set aside and remitted for redetermination, but dismissed in all other respects.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's order requiring her to post $50,000 in security for costs of her appeal.

The panel found no error in principle, unreasonable result, legal error, or misapprehension of material evidence in the motion judge's decision.

The motion judge had considered 11 outstanding costs orders totalling over $146,000, the moving party's lack of diligence in perfecting her appeal, and the prejudice to the estate beneficiaries.

The panel declined to consider new affidavit evidence filed after the motion judge's decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs of $10,000 payable to the responding party.

The appellant sought to set aside a default judgment entered seven years earlier after her pleadings were struck for non-compliance with a costs order imposed as a condition of an adjournment.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not brought promptly or pursued diligently and disbelieving the explanation offered.

On appeal, the court found no error in the motion judge's application of the test under Rule 19.08 for setting aside a default judgment, including findings of prejudice and tarnishing of the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and possession of child pornography, raising three grounds including that the application judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge incorrectly characterized multiple periods of delay as defence delay, applying a bright-line rule later rejected by the Supreme Court in Hanan.

Properly calculated, the net delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling by nearly three months, and the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances.

The convictions were quashed and a stay of proceedings entered.

The appellant appealed a Family Court order compelling compliance with prior security-for-costs and costs orders in ongoing family proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction because the order was a final Family Court order made only under provincial legislation, engaging s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court emphasized that such appeals lie to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

It also noted procedural options to avoid delay where jurisdictional transfer issues arise, including consent transfer orders or motions to quash.

The appellant challenged a bankruptcy order and a related post-judgment Mareva order granted at the request of a court-appointed monitor holding a substantial judgment debt.

The court held the bankruptcy order was appealable as of right under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and treated the Mareva order as a final order appealable under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act in the circumstances.

On the merits, the court found no reversible legal or discretionary error in rejecting objections to the monitor’s authority, rejecting allegations of collateral purpose, and refusing dismissal or adjournment under ss. 43(7) and 43(10) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court also upheld continuation of the Mareva relief as complementary to bankruptcy administration and dismissed the appeal with agreed costs.

The appellants, holders of 2025 series senior secured notes, appealed the final order approving a CBCA plan of arrangement that restructured $270 million in pari passu senior secured notes issued in three series.

The arrangement extended the maturity dates of all notes and was approved by 75 percent of senior noteholders voting as one class, though only 20 percent of 2025 noteholders voted in favour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot because the plan had been implemented without a stay, and that it constituted a collateral attack on the interim order establishing the single-class voting classification, from which leave to appeal had already been denied.

The court further held that the application judge applied the correct test under s. 192 of the CBCA, made factual findings entitled to deference, and committed no reviewable error in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable or in dismissing the oppression remedy application.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal order and restore their collection action to the trial list.

The Court of Appeal found two reviewable errors: the motion judge erred in principle by failing to consider the respondent's lackadaisical conduct in assessing prejudice, and made a palpable and overriding error in finding the appellants showed disinterest in the action despite evidence they had contacted their lawyer multiple times seeking updates.

Considering the matter afresh, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, and restored the action to the trial list.

The appellant appealed from an order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action against a federally regulated company for alleged discrimination during a 2015 job interview.

The motions judge found no viable cause of action because there is no common law tort of discrimination and the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Superior Court was the appropriate forum and that the limitation period was suspended due to incapacity.

The Court of Appeal found no basis for appellate intervention, noting the appellant had commenced several other lawsuits during the relevant period, undermining his incapacity claim.

The motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed as it failed to meet the test for admission.

The appellants sought to enforce a Property Partnership Agreement granting them an option to purchase a residential property from the respondent, their mother.

The application judge declared the Agreement unenforceable on the basis that it contained an incomplete essential term regarding distribution of excess sale proceeds, and further found undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unconscionability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the incomplete term was non-essential and severable, that no presumption of undue influence arose given the respondent's capacity and the specific nature of the relationship, that independent legal advice was received before the Agreement was signed, and that the unconscionability analysis failed to meet the threshold established in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in support of a motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The affidavit, sworn by the owner of the responding party's autobody shop, purported to demonstrate the systemic implications of the Divisional Court's interpretation on independent repair shops and policyholders.

The motion judge found the affidavit was replete with argument and opinion rather than proper factual evidence, relying on anecdotal assertions rather than statistical or corroborating data.

The affidavit was struck in its entirety, and the responding party was directed to file a fresh factum with references to the affidavit removed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellants challenged dismissal of their action as an abuse of process.

The court agreed the claim repeated issues from prior mortgage litigation and also dismissed the fresh-evidence motion.

The appeal challenged the validity of a guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm.

Both parties acknowledged the plea did not reflect their agreement and resulted from mutual misapprehension.

The court allowed the appeal, substituted a conviction for common assault, and left sentence intact.

The appellant challenged orders in bankruptcy proceedings including standing rulings, estate consolidation, and treatment of approved claims.

The court found no right of appeal under s. 193(a) or (c) of the BIA, declined leave under s. 193(e), and held the appellant had not timely invoked available statutory claim-challenge mechanisms.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged multiple convictions as unreasonable, legally flawed, and affected by ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found the evidentiary record supported the trial findings, identified no legal error, and held no miscarriage of justice was shown.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of the Court's decision on the appeal, submissions were received regarding the apportionment of costs.

The Court fixed costs of the appeal payable to the Receiver, the respondent 100 Ontario Inc., and the respondent Issam A. Saad, each in the amount of $15,000.