Susan E. Lang

The appellant appealed his conviction for fourteen sexual offences involving eight complainants at group homes where he worked.

The Crown's case relied heavily on a confession the appellant gave to police while he was a voluntary psychiatric patient suffering from depression.

The appellant argued his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated because the police did not obtain a clear waiver after he gave an equivocal response about wanting a lawyer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant understood his rights and had a reasonable opportunity to exercise them, and the police were not required to do more in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession.

The appellants failed to provide a plausible explanation for their delay in moving to set aside the judgment.

The Court of Appeal rejected an attempt to introduce fresh evidence regarding an alleged forbearance agreement, finding it would fail the Palmer test as the evidence was available at the time of the original motion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's order for a re-trial, which was based on a finding that the jury's answers regarding damages were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jury's answers were not inconsistent and that there was evidence to support their findings on past and future wage loss and general damages.

The jury's verdict was reinstated, and the issue of costs was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking based on his trial counsel's advice that police surveillance recordings confirmed reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest.

Prior to sentencing, the appellant retained new counsel and moved to set aside the plea, arguing it was uninformed because trial counsel had misheard the recordings.

The trial judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal listened to the recordings and found no evidence supporting the observations trial counsel claimed to have heard.

The Court held that the guilty plea was uninformed because it was grounded on a critical misapprehension of information regarding the viability of the appellant's only defence.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting expert police evidence regarding a 'code of silence' in the community where the shooting occurred.

The Crown introduced this evidence to explain why the sole eyewitness initially lied to police about witnessing the murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was relevant and necessary to provide context for the witness's behaviour, and that the trial judge implemented extraordinary safeguards to prevent prejudice, including prohibiting the word 'gang' and providing clear limiting instructions to the jury.

The appellant was convicted of possession of a stolen tractor found in a cube van in his backyard.

At trial, the judge excluded utterances made by a third party found at the scene, ruling them inadmissible hearsay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred because the statements were not adduced for the truth of their contents, but simply to prove they were made, which could support an alternative suspect theory.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at a mental health facility rather than granting an absolute or conditional discharge.

At the hearing, the appellant abandoned his request for a conditional discharge and sought only an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant presented a significant threat to public safety and that continued detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The moving party employer sought leave to appeal a conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to provide a signaller when a worker was injured by a reversing truck.

The employer argued that the regulation only applied if the vehicle was engaged as material handling equipment and challenged the regulation as unconstitutionally overbroad.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the proper interpretation of the legislative provision raised issues essential to the public interest in workplace safety.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting three complainants and administering a stupefying drug to one of them.

The complainants alleged they felt ill after drinking wine provided by the appellant.

At trial, the Crown relied on expert evidence that GHB was found in one of the wine bottles.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh expert evidence showing that GHB occurs naturally in all red wine, including the specific brand and vintage seized.

The Court of Appeal applied the Palmer test and admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could reasonably be expected to have affected the jury's assessment of the complainants' credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

He argued that the trial judge improperly reversed the onus of proof and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly required the Crown to prove the NCR status on a balance of probabilities and that the reasons adequately explained the reliance on unchallenged expert evidence.

The appellant real estate brokerage claimed a commission from the respondents based on an exclusive listing agreement.

The respondents had entered into a lease agreement and an agreement of purchase and sale with a third party during the extended term of the listing agreement.

The appellant argued this amounted to a completed transaction or an option to purchase.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the claim, finding that the transaction was a lease pending a future sale, and any ambiguity in the broker-drafted agreement must be resolved in favour of the respondents.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

Costs of the appeal and a related appeal were awarded to the respondents in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at a mental health facility.

The hospital had significantly increased restrictions on his liberty after he tested positive for illicit drugs and exhibited deteriorating mental health.

The Board conducted a combined restrictions review and annual review, concluding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and that his ongoing detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal standards and that its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision, arguing a trial was required for its claim that the respondent intentionally interfered with its economic relations with a tenant through the tort of nuisance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the appellant suffered damages as a result of the respondent's conduct, particularly regarding lease renewals.

The self-represented appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay a mortgage debt and give up possession of his property.

He argued that he had paid condominium fees, that the respondents wrongly discharged a lien against the property, and that he received no notice of non-renewal of the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge, noting the mortgage had matured and the respondents properly paid the condominium corporation to satisfy the lien.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant, the respondent brought a motion to re-open the appeal based on fresh evidence.

The court declined to re-open the appeal.

The appellant sought costs of $7,500 for preparing responding materials and costs submissions.

The court awarded the appellant costs fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed their convictions and 15-year sentences for attempted murder.

They argued the verdicts were unreasonable due to unreliable eyewitness identification and that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The appellant Nguyen also argued the trial judge erred in applying party liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the identification evidence was supported by other evidence and the trial judge's reasons were sufficient.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeals, holding that the 15-year sentences were within the appropriate range given the horrific nature of the shooting that rendered the victim quadriplegic, and that the trial judge did not err in denying enhanced pre-trial custody credit to an offender who committed the offence while serving a conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that he had repudiated an accepted offer to settle a family law dispute.

The appellant argued that his proposed separation agreement did not contain important changes or additions to the accepted offer.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the appellant's proposal to transfer control of the matrimonial home and another property to himself without specifying trust terms or time limitations was a fundamental alteration.

The court upheld the motion judge's application of the doctrine of repudiation and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful appeal, the court addressed the disposition of the $15,000 costs awarded by the Divisional Court to the respondent.

The court applied the general rule that when an appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and costs below are awarded to the successful appellant.

The appellants were awarded $15,000 in costs for the Divisional Court proceedings.

Following an appeal that reduced the respondents' damages from $500,955 to $147,855, the court determined the costs of the trial.

The court considered various settlement offers made by both parties, including a non-compliant offer by the respondents that remained open and a mid-trial offer by the appellants.

The court also noted the appellants' failure to contest the negligence issue at trial, which required the exercise of the court's discretion on appeal and likely affected the respondents' settlement decisions.

The respondents were awarded trial costs fixed at $140,000.