Susan E. Lang

The appellants sought to enforce an Illinois arbitration award in Ontario against the respondents and to obtain judgment on contractual indemnification obligations.

The application judge enforced the award against the primary debtor but dismissed the application against the other respondents.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to enforce the arbitral award against the respondents because they lacked proper notice.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the indemnification claim, setting aside the dismissal and staying the application to refer the indemnification dispute to arbitration pursuant to the parties' agreement.

The appellants challenged the province's policy of seeking compensation for fire services fees from individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents, arguing it violated section 7 of the Charter by potentially deterring people from calling for essential services.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was no evidence to support this assertion.

The Court also affirmed that section 7 does not protect purely economic interests and that the province's process of establishing liability through the courts accords with fundamental justice.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody of the parties' two children to the respondent mother and failing to determine access.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by placing undue emphasis on the father's past deceitful conduct and insufficient emphasis on the children's best interests under the Divorce Act.

The trial judge failed to consider the children's needs, the maximum contact principle, and the merits of the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the issues of custody, access, and child support.

The Crown appealed a disposition for a breach of a conditional sentence order where the judge imposed an intermittent sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an intermittent sentence under section 732 of the Criminal Code is not an available option for a breach of a conditional sentence under section 742.6(9).

The term 'intermittent' was deleted from the disposition.

The appellant, a former Revenue Canada auditor, was convicted of 249 counts of fraudulently obtaining over $1.5 million in GST refunds.

He appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence to support an alibi defence and arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the Crown's duty to preserve evidence.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentence, seeking a four-year term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria and the lack of a jury instruction was a tactical decision by the defence that would not have altered the verdict.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's role was entitled to deference.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the Crown's appeal from an order quashing search warrants obtained under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the appeal was moot because the Crown had made a deliberate choice not to execute the impugned warrants to keep the trial process moving.

The court also held that the ancillary costs order could not sustain the moot appeal.

The appeal was quashed in its entirety.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle went off the road, killing his passenger.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting the Crown accident reconstructionist's opinion on speed and impairment, and in failing to properly instruct the jury regarding 'bolus drinking'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the expert was properly qualified to give the impugned opinions and the jury was entitled to infer from the evidence and common sense that the appellant had not engaged in bolus drinking.

The appellant supplied construction materials to a business partly owned by the respondent's husband.

When the business failed to pay, the appellant registered a lien, which it later released in exchange for a mortgage on the respondent's matrimonial home.

The trial judge found the respondent's signature on the mortgage was forged and declared it void, also dismissing the appellant's counterclaims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the counterclaims, finding that a valid contract provided a juristic reason for any enrichment, and there was no evidence the respondent knowingly received trust property.

The appellants sought leave to commence an action against a court-appointed Receiver for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding that the Receiver's conduct had already been scrutinized and approved in three previous proceedings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the appellants from re-litigating the same facts and arguments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The appellant, acting as receiver for a yacht manufacturer, appealed the dismissal of its insurance claim against the respondent export credit insurer.

The manufacturer had not been paid for boats delivered to a U.S. dealer and to Spain.

The dealer refused to pay because the manufacturer's receivership meant it could not fulfill warranty obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that while the loss fell within the policy's initial coverage, the insurer successfully proved that an exclusion applied because the buyer did not pay due to a legitimate dispute regarding the export contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed a divorce order, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to reduce his child support obligation by the amount of the CPP child benefit, dismissing his claim for spousal support, and miscalculating the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal held that the CPP child benefit is the child's entitlement and does not offset a parent's child support obligation under the Guidelines.

The court upheld the dismissal of spousal support due to the appellant's undeclared income, but allowed the appeal in part to correct minor calculation errors regarding child support and the equalization payment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample.

He was stopped for a burnt-out headlight, smelled of alcohol, and provided thirteen unsuitable breath samples into a screening device by giving short, quick puffs despite instructions.

The trial judge found he intentionally refused to provide a proper sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and properly considered the evidence.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The trial judge found that the appellant unlawfully detained the complainant and lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him for causing a disturbance, as the complainant's loud and rude protestations were instigated by the appellant's improper actions.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' conclusions that there was no criminal disturbance and no reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to appreciate the unsavoury witnesses' motives to fabricate, provided insufficient reasons for judgment, and erred in rejecting a witness's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately cautioned himself regarding the unsavoury witnesses, provided reasons adequate for appellate review, and sufficiently explained his rejection of the witness's evidence.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

As success was divided, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs for both the motion and the appeal, making no order for costs in the Court of Appeal or before the lower court judge.

The applicant sought bail pending the determination of his judicial review of the Minister of Justice's refusal to reconsider a surrender order in extradition proceedings.

The Crown opposed bail, arguing the judicial review was frivolous and citing the public interest in enforcing the surrender order after seven and a half years of delay, and alternatively sought to expedite the hearing.

The court granted bail, finding the judicial review raised new issues and the applicant's detention was not necessary in the public interest.

However, the court also granted the Crown's motion to expedite the judicial review hearing to mitigate prejudice to the extradition partner.

The appellants appealed jury convictions for two murders arising from a drug-debt execution theory advanced through accomplice and jailhouse informer evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge failed to provide an adequate Vetrovec caution regarding key unsavoury witnesses and also committed several additional reversible errors, including admitting highly prejudicial investigative hearsay, admitting evidence of a co-accused’s manslaughter conviction, excluding exculpatory portions of a recorded statement under the whole statement rule, permitting inadmissible hearsay concerning one appellant’s alleged admission to his girlfriend, and failing to control prejudicial Crown cross-examination and oath-helping evidence.

The court rejected the reasonable apprehension of bias claim and declined to intervene on several discrete evidentiary rulings, but found the cumulative and individual errors too serious for the curative proviso.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed costs submissions regarding the proceedings below.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the successful appellant $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, for the costs of the proceedings below.

The appellant appealed a decision affirming the Minister of Finance's assessment of retail sales tax.

The appellant argued its boats were exempt under the Retail Sales Tax Act as they operated for 'commercial purposes' providing public transportation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the boats operated primarily for tourist purposes, such as glass-bottom shipwreck tours, rather than transportation.

The court also rejected the argument that refitting expenses were exempt capital costs, noting the tax applies to tangible personal property regardless of capital purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the municipality for a motor vehicle accident on a snow-packed road.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment, as the municipality did not put causation in issue and there was conflicting evidence regarding whether it met its standard of care under the Municipal Act.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was directed to trial.