Tulloch J.A.

The accused, a former army reservist, shot and killed a prowler who was breaking into his truck.

At trial, the accused claimed self-defence, arguing his military training led him to proactively confront the threat and that he believed the prowler was reaching for a gun.

The jury acquitted the accused of second-degree murder.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider the accused's conduct leading up to the shooting when assessing the reasonableness of his actions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to address a treatment impasse and erred in admitting an email into evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a treatment impasse on the record and noting the Board's wide latitude to accept hearsay evidence.

The appellant's continued detention at a maximum secure forensic facility was deemed appropriate.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge should have granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody rather than 1.5:1.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion and appropriately considered the appellant's repeated serious misconduct while in custody.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision refusing to set aside a noting of default.

The motion judge had considered the appellant's failure to comply with an outstanding production order, which could prejudice the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

Furthermore, the Court held that Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply because the respondents had obtained an order to proceed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants, representative plaintiffs in a class action alleging auditor negligence, appealed the dismissal of their motion under Rule 30.10(1) for production of investigation documents from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, a non-party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that it would not be unfair for the appellants to proceed to trial without the documents.

Although the Court found the motion judge erred in concluding the documents were protected by case-by-case privilege under the Wigmore criteria, the appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish the unfairness requirement of Rule 30.10(1).

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its claim on the basis that it was barred by a broadly worded release from a 1996 action settlement.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim related to the lands referred to in the release.

Furthermore, the court found that the appellant was an affiliate or associate of the releasing party due to the common control of both entities by the same individual.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.