Whalen

The appellant, a private citizen, sought to lay an information before a justice of the peace in Toronto for offences allegedly committed in another administrative region.

The justice refused to receive the information, citing a lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The appellant's application to compel the justice to receive the information was dismissed by the Superior Court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that 'territorial jurisdiction' in section 504 of the Criminal Code refers to the entire Province of Ontario, not administrative regions.

The appeal was allowed, and the justice was ordered to receive the information.

The applicant sought to reopen his sentence appeal after being declared a dangerous offender and receiving an indeterminate sentence.

He argued that based on a subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision, the sentencing judge erred by not considering the long-term offender provisions.

The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction to reopen the appeal because the merits were not previously decided.

The court found it was in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal due to the serious error of law and the possibility of a different result at a new sentencing hearing.

The young person appealed a conviction entered by the youth court.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence, applying the W.D. framework, and misapprehending evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment or application of the law.

The appellant appealed his drug-related conviction on the sole ground that the trial judge failed to warn the jury not to engage in propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that since identity was the sole issue and all evidence was admissible on all counts, the requested warning would have confused the jury and would not have benefited the appellant.

The young person appealed the trial judge's decision to sentence him as an adult for second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by directly deducting two and a half years of pre-trial custody rather than treating it as a discretionary consideration.

The appeal was allowed, the adult sentence was set aside, and the maximum youth sentence was imposed to better facilitate the young person's rehabilitation.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The respondent moved to stay the hearing, alleging witness tampering by an employee of the appellant.

The appellant retained a private investigator to interview witnesses.

The respondent sought a summons for the investigator to testify and produce interview records.

The Board refused, citing irrelevance.

The Divisional Court overturned the Board's decision, finding a breach of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the investigator's evidence was material to the stay motion, the judicial review application was not premature due to the denial of natural justice, and the evidence was not protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent a constructive trust in a residential home and a boat following the end of their 13-year common law relationship.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of unjust enrichment but varied the order on consent to reflect a fixed amount of $97,000 rather than a percentage interest.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking a constructive trust in the appellant's business was dismissed, as she had been appropriately compensated as an employee.

The court ordered the $97,000 interest to be secured against the residence and directed its sale if the judgment was not paid by a specified date.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to terminate child support and rescind or reduce arrears fixed at $39,782.72.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting section 17 of the Divorce Act and failed to weigh his health problems and competing obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's long-standing failure to pay support, his ability to work despite health issues, and his complete lack of contact with the child.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to stay the respondent's action on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal, arguing the underlying order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the motions judge had dismissed the stay motion without prejudice due to an insufficient record, meaning the order did not finally determine the appellant's right to a stay.

As the order was interlocutory, any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave.