Warren K. Winkler

The respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and was sentenced to two years less a day, plus probation, with 12 months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing the respondent played a more significant role than a mere courier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the respondent was involved in the distribution of multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and negotiating prices.

The sentence was varied to four years, with credit for pre-trial custody and time served on parole.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its claim for a commission and unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found there was no agreement to pay the appellant in the absence of a completed transaction, and the appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The respondent was acquitted at trial of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The trial judge found that the respondent had started his car with a remote starter, was scraping ice off the window, had the keys in his pocket, and intended to drive away, but concluded there was no present danger because he had not entered the vehicle.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the acquittal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact compelled the legal conclusion that the respondent was in care or control, as his conduct created an obvious risk of danger.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision ordering his surrender to the United States for prosecution.

The applicant argued that the surrender unjustifiably infringed his section 6 Charter rights, that the Crown's conduct regarding plea bargains and stayed charges constituted an abuse of process under section 7, and that the Minister failed to properly consider extenuating family circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision reasonable and no abuse of process by the Crown.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.

The appellant and amicus curiae argued the Board erred by not ordering a hybrid disposition that would allow the hospital to move him to minimum security at its discretion, as recommended by psychiatrists.

The Court of Appeal held the Board was entitled to reject the psychiatric evidence and require an early review hearing instead.

The appeal was dismissed, but the Board was ordered to convene the requested early review hearing forthwith.

Following a successful appeal where the appellant prevailed on all issues, the court determined the costs of the underlying trial and application.

The appellant sought over $270,000 in total costs.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs of the trial at $150,000 and the costs of the application at $25,000, payable by the respondents.

The appellant purchased a vacant lot and hired a builder recommended by a co-worker real estate agent to build a custom home with a walk-out basement apartment.

After the builder encountered financial difficulties and failed to complete the project, the appellant sued the co-worker for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The trial judge awarded damages for negligent misrepresentation regarding the legality of the basement apartment and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal to increase damages, finding she failed to mitigate.

The Court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages award because no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting specific performance of a share purchase agreement.

The appellant argued the letter agreement lacked certainty regarding the mortgage amount, interest payments, and reporting requirements, amounting only to an agreement to agree.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the agreement's terms were clear and capable of enforcement when read in the context of the surrounding factual matrix.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to vacate the respondent's property, where he had been living and working without legal right.

The trial judge had granted a grace period for the appellant to remove his personal property, which he failed to do.

The appellant argued his property and Charter rights were breached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the trial judge and noting the appellant's problems were of his own making.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant brought an action against the lawyer who represented his child's mother in a custody dispute, alleging the lawyer committed criminal acts including perjury and fraud.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

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

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's careful and thorough reasons.

The appellant's request for leave to appeal costs was also denied, as there was no basis on the record to grant such leave.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's conclusions, noting that the motion judge carefully reviewed the record and allowed any claim with a scintilla of evidence to proceed to trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages arising from charges brought under the Travel Industry Act.

The appellant argued the Registrar was negligent by failing to provide notice and a hearing for its licence renewal under s. 6 of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to pay the prescribed fee to apply for renewal.

Consequently, there was no pending application and no obligation to provide notice or a hearing.

The self-represented appellant's personal injury action was dismissed by the trial judge on his own motion before the appellant's evidence-in-chief was completed, on the basis that the evidence was incoherent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while a trial court has inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, this does not extend to dismissing cases without hearing the available evidence and submissions.

The appellant's right to a fair trial was denied.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for leave nunc pro tunc under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence a claim against the former interim receiver and trustee in bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants failed to provide sufficient affidavit evidence to demonstrate a prima facie case.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the sentence imposed by the trial judge that would justify appellate intervention.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was being pursued by police.

She sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, and argued it was not liable to pay the respondent because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal held that an injured insured is not required to sue insured potential joint tortfeasors to access uninsured coverage, and is only disentitled if the joint tortfeasor's insurer admits liability to pay or the insured obtains judgment against them.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured driver who was fleeing police.

The plaintiff sued the uninsured driver and her own insurer under the uninsured coverage provisions of her policy, but did not sue the police or municipality.

The insurer brought a third-party claim against the police and municipality, arguing that the plaintiff was disentitled from uninsured coverage because she failed to sue the insured joint tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding that the phrase 'entitled to recover' in the Uninsured Automobile Coverage Schedule means 'entitled to recover in fact', and an injured insured is not required to sue potential joint tortfeasors to access their uninsured coverage.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a trial decision regarding the conversion of a commercial building into a residential condominium.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent Lomico was a 'declarant' under the Condominium Act, that a lease of HVAC equipment to the condominium corporation was null and void because the equipment formed part of the common elements, and that the developers breached the construction warranty by failing to substantially renovate the parking garage.

The Court dismissed the developers' cross-appeal, affirming that unit owners have an appurtenant property right to lease parking spaces at market rates.

Damages and market rates were directed to a reference.

The respondent architectural firm produced volumes of blueprints and specifications, which it purchased from a third-party duplicator and distributed to contractors.

The Minister of Finance denied a retail sales tax exemption, arguing the volumes were not 'published' to the general public and were not 'solely' for a technical purpose due to the firm's commercial intent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister's appeal, holding that distribution to a targeted audience satisfies the publication requirement and that the technical purpose is determined by the content of the books, not the producer's commercial intention.