Steve Anthony Banate Coroza

The appellants, purchasers of a new home, appealed an order declaring they repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close and dismissing their counter-application for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions.

The lower court correctly found that the vendor satisfied the requirements to extend the closing date due to "Unavoidable Delay" (COVID-19 related), was not obligated to deliver the occupancy permit before closing, and did not act in bad faith by refusing a further extension.

The appellate court affirmed the application judge's interpretation of the agreement and factual findings, noting they were entitled to deference.

Charlas MacKenzie, eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance, had his subsidy terminated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa.

This was due to his failure to report a change in household composition (daughters removed due to bail conditions) and prolonged absence from his unit (required to live with surety).

The Divisional Court dismissed his application for judicial review, finding the respondents' decisions reasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the respondents' interpretation and application of the Housing Services Act, 2011 and its regulations regarding reporting changes and absence from the unit to be reasonable, particularly in the context of limited housing subsidies and long waitlists.

The court also found no error in the assessment of extenuating circumstances.

The appellant, Robert Francis Fox, appealed his conviction for sexual assault after pleading guilty mid-trial.

He sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary due to misinformed advice from his trial counsel regarding the collateral consequence of losing access to his young daughter if convicted.

The Court of Appeal, considering fresh evidence from a family and criminal lawyer, found that the trial counsel's advice was exaggerated and incorrect, leading to an improperly informed plea.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty plea set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, Yasin Abdulle, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his 15-year parole ineligibility period.

The conviction appeal challenged the admission of evidence regarding prior violent incidents between rival gangs and the use of rap music lyrics during cross-examination.

The sentence appeal argued that the trial judge erred by minimizing the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the appellant's moral culpability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the admission of prior incident evidence or the use of rap lyrics for cross-examination.

While acknowledging the trial judge's error in dismissing evidence of anti-Black racism, the Court found this error did not impact the fit sentence, given the seriousness of the "near first-degree murder" offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant, M.V., appealed a sexual assault sentence, arguing for enhanced credit for time served in federal custody after his initial conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered.

The trial judge had granted 1:1 credit for this period, reasoning that the appellant had access to federal programs.

The Court of Appeal found this to be an error in principle, as the trial judge failed to consider that this time would not count towards parole eligibility and statutory release for the new sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an additional 368 days of credit, reducing his net sentence from two years to one year.

Nathaniel White, found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that removed his community living and 30-day pass privileges.

The ORB had accepted his request for a lateral transfer to another facility but removed the privileges based on clinical opinion that community living was not realistic due to his recent decompensation and need for a slower, more supported approach to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision was not unreasonable or based on an error of law, distinguishing it from a case where there was a misapprehension of information.

The appellant appealed a 22-month jail sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography, seeking a conditional sentence and arguing errors in considering an unconstitutional mandatory minimum and failing to weigh health problems.

The Crown conceded the unconstitutionality of the minimum but argued the sentence was fit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 22-month sentence, finding it appropriate given the nature and volume of the material, and that health issues were considered.

However, on consent, the court allowed the appeal to substitute a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration for the lifetime order, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions arising from an appeal of a trial decision concerning the division of a business.

The appellant sought to file an extended factum, which was unopposed and granted.

The respondent moved to lift an automatic stay of enforcement for a portion of the trial judgment, arguing financial hardship and that the amount represented the appellant's "best position" even if successful on appeal.

The court granted the motion to lift the stay for $1,874,400, finding demonstrable hardship to the respondent, minimal risk of non-recovery for the appellant given his admitted liability, and that the appeal on factual findings was not strong.

The order included a proportional transfer of shares to the appellant upon payment.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached upon arrest.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's factual finding regarding the appellant's response to the police's offer of counsel ("I will at some point").

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination that this statement did not constitute an invocation of the right to counsel, consistent with established jurisprudence.

As a result, no Charter breach occurred, and the issue of excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter was not considered.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility and reliability, arguing that the judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address the cumulative impact of weaknesses in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the record and the trial judge's reasons, finding no misapprehension of evidence or piecemeal approach.

The trial judge's findings on credibility were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning a motion to change a divorce judgment.

The original judgment included a provision for increased spousal support upon default.

The motion judge had found no material change in circumstances but nevertheless varied the judgment by declaring the default provision an unenforceable penalty and reducing the interest on arrears.

The Court of Appeal held that a judge cannot vary a spousal support order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act without a material change in circumstances, as the common law rule against penalty clauses applies to contracts, not to court orders that have been consented to and incorporated into a judgment.

However, the court affirmed the motion judge's power to vary the post-judgment interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act, as this power is distinct from varying support provisions under the Divorce Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, reinstating the default support provision but upholding the revised interest rate.

The appellant appealed his convictions for importing heroin, possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing proceeds of crime over $5,000, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence of 12 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's refusal of a mistrial due to non-disclosure of alternate suspects, the handling of eyewitness identification evidence (applying the curative proviso), the admission of police opinion evidence, or the instructions on post-offence conduct.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the 12-year global sentence fit given the seriousness and quantity of the drugs involved.

The appellant, a youth, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, raising three grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, erroneous dismissal of a s. 278.3 Criminal Code application for production of the complainant's therapeutic records, and improper curtailment of cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a miscarriage of justice due to counsel's performance, that the trial judge correctly dismissed the s. 278.3 application as the records were not shown to be "likely relevant" with case-specific information, and that cross-examination was not improperly curtailed.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding of non-consensual sexual contact and the inapplicability of the honest but mistaken belief in consent defence.

The appellant, Ryan Gomboc, appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking cocaine.

He challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the validity of a search warrant for one of his residences (6 Gibbon Drive), specifically arguing that the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) misled the issuing justice and that there were insufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The trial judge had found the search warrant for another residence (32 Royal Oak Drive) invalid but admitted the seized cellphone under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the affiant did not mislead the justice and that there were sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to search 6 Gibbon Drive based on the appellant's conduct and police observations.

Consequently, a new s. 24(2) analysis was deemed unnecessary.

The appellant, Danny Correa, appealed his convictions for attempted sexual assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury on the intent required for attempted sexual assault, nor were the verdicts unreasonable or inconsistent.

The court also upheld the dangerous offender designation, finding no material misapprehension of evidence or error in accepting the psychiatric risk assessment, despite a six-year gap in the appellant's offence history.

The appellant, Antonio Duscio, appealed a 16-month imprisonment sentence for contempt of court, which was imposed shortly after a previous 12-month contempt sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's analysis of relevant legal principles or extensive factual findings.

The court noted that the appellant could secure early release by purging his contempt or providing a complete accounting of dissipated funds and assets.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention in a secure forensic unit, arguing for a hybrid order allowing the hospital discretion over placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the uncontested evidence that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and posed a high risk of absconding.

The appellant sought to review a single judge's order declining an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a refusal to extend time to appeal an Ontario Court of Justice order dismissing the appellant's application for adult child support under the Family Law Act, based on his failure to pay a 1995 New Brunswick divorce judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no error in the motion judge's decision regarding the appellant's delay, lack of merit in the appeal, and prejudice to the respondents.

The court affirmed that the motion judge properly considered the relevant factors for extending time to perfect an appeal.

The appellant, Mounir Nader, appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to the early termination of his secondment agreement with Ontario Health and University Health Network (UHN).

He sought payment for the remaining term of the secondment, 12 months' severance, and a discretionary annual performance-based bonus.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the secondment agreement was not an employment agreement and that the appellant was only entitled to 12 months' severance under his employment agreement, not additional payment for the secondment term.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in denying the performance-based bonus, concluding it was an integral part of compensation and should be awarded for the severance period.

The appellant, Jemaal Wilson, appealed his convictions for human trafficking, receiving material benefit, making and distributing child pornography, and procuring, as well as his global seven-year sentence.

The Crown conceded an acquittal for the procuring conviction and a conditional stay for one material benefit conviction (Kienapple principle).

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in applying an overly narrow definition of "control" for human trafficking but upheld the conviction by amending the indictment to include "direction or influence," finding no prejudice to the appellant.

The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the fault element of human trafficking and the complainant's credibility.

On sentencing, the Court found the global seven-year sentence fit, despite the trial judge's error in considering a subsequent manslaughter conviction as an aggravating factor, and clarified that pre-sentence custody should apply to all counts.