C. William Hourigan

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that imposed a hybrid detention order requiring detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit or allow community residence in approved accommodation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for threatening others with a knife in 2011, had been living in the community under conditional discharge but experienced significant deterioration in 2017 due to medication non-compliance and substance use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's findings of significant threat and the necessity of the detention order were amply supported by evidence.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault of a 17-year-old woman who had been forced into the sex trade.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent as it lacked an air of reality; (2) Crown counsel conducted improper cross-examination and delivered an inflammatory closing address; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the defence instruction should not have been given as there was no air of reality to it, and the manner in which it was presented to the jury obscured the appellant's actual defence and confused the jury regarding his position that the acts never occurred.

The trial judge's misstatement of the appellant's position compounded this error.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction on one count of unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

During a police raid on an apartment, officers found a gun that came loose from the appellant's hands as he fell to the ground after being tackled by a lead officer.

The appellant testified that he did not possess a gun, did not put his hands out when falling, and did not see a gun on the floor.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and accepted the officer's testimony.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to adequately scrutinize the officer's evidence regarding certainty versus reliability, stress effects on recollection, split-second observations, and potential reconstruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly scrutinized the evidence and reached conclusions entitled to deference.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.

The appellant appealed his convictions on 11 counts of weapons offences and his sentence of eight years.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of firing a handgun at a third party and then chasing the shooter, ultimately disposing of the weapon in a recycling bin.

The sole issue at trial was whether the pursuer was the appellant or his friend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of proof and noting that the appellant's blood was found on the recovered handgun, his clothing matched witness descriptions, and he was the only injured party.

The court also upheld the eight-year sentence, noting it was a second firearms offence committed while subject to weapons prohibition orders, and that the mandatory minimum penalty of seven years applied under s. 244(3) of the Criminal Code.

Two appeals from a trial judgment concerning liability for environmental remediation of real property contaminated by dry cleaning solvents.

The trial judge found Fraser Hillary's Limited liable in nuisance and under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act, awarding over $1.8 million in damages for remediation.

The action against David Hillary was dismissed.

Fraser appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in finding it liable in nuisance and under the EPA.

The plaintiff appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to find negligence, failing to find the individual defendant liable in nuisance or negligence, and in assessing damages.

The appellate court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial judgment.

The appellant was convicted by jury of intentionally discharging a firearm while reckless as to the life or safety of another person and occupying a motor vehicle while knowing there was a firearm in the vehicle.

The Crown's theory was that the appellant counselled an unknown SUV driver to shoot at the victim as retaliation for damage to the appellant's mother's vehicle.

The appeal raised the issue of whether the convictions were unreasonable based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal was divided: one judge would have allowed the appeal and entered acquittals, finding insufficient evidence to support the convictions; the majority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions, finding the jury verdicts reasonable on the totality of the evidence.

The appellants sought leave to appeal their first-degree murder convictions and sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a recantation by key Crown witness Ronnie Khananisho.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit the fresh evidence and confirmed the prior panel's dismissal of the appellants' appeals from conviction.

The court found that while the recantation was admissible and the due diligence requirement was satisfied, the evidence failed the cogency test.

The recantation suffered from serious credibility issues, including implausible origins involving contact with the incarcerated appellant's former girlfriend, and could not reasonably be expected to have affected the trial verdict given that the central witnesses were Jorge Restrepo and Jorge Acosta, whose testimony was corroborated by powerful independent evidence including cellphone records and medical evidence.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and common assault by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment on the sexual assault conviction and one year concurrent on the common assault conviction.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge's findings of corroborative evidence were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly identified corroborating evidence in the complainant's flight from the house naked in February and the neighbours' observations of her state and demeanor, which provided powerful confirmation of her account of sexual and physical assault.

The appellants (sellers) appealed a decision granting the respondent (purchaser) rescission of an agreement of purchase and sale and return of the deposit.

The dispute concerned the interpretation of an illegal substances clause in a standard form Ontario Real Estate Association/Toronto Real Estate Board Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The purchaser discovered after execution that the property had previously been used as a marijuana grow-operation and sought to terminate the agreement.

The application judge found the sellers had breached their representation and warranty in the clause.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the sellers' representation and warranty regarding the property's prior use was limited to their knowledge and belief as it existed at the time of execution of the agreement, not at closing.

Since the sellers did not know about the prior use at execution, no breach occurred.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and attempt to obstruct justice, as well as the lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order imposed as an ancillary order on sentence.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal but challenged the lifetime SOIRA order, arguing it should be 20 years.

Both the appellant and respondent agreed on this issue.

The court found that although there is no right of appeal from a SOIRA order imposed under s. 490.012(1) of the Criminal Code, the trial judge retains inherent jurisdiction to correct an erroneous SOIRA order.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, but the appellant was directed to return the matter to the trial judge for correction.

Indigenous peoples from Ecuador obtained a US$9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation for environmental devastation caused by oil exploration.

After failing to enforce the judgment in the United States due to findings of fraud by the plaintiffs' counsel, they sought to enforce it in Ontario against Chevron Canada, a seventh-level subsidiary.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding that Chevron Canada's shares and assets were not exigible under the Execution Act and that the corporate veil should not be pierced.

The appellants appealed, arguing both that the Execution Act permitted seizure of Chevron Canada's assets and that the corporate veil should be pierced in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award, recognizing the litigation as public interest litigation.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action against their neighbours.

The action sought injunctive relief and damages for invasion of privacy from surveillance cameras, nuisance from speakers and floodlights, trespass from fence construction, and abuse of process from a peace bond application.

The trial judge found no credible evidence of invasion of privacy, no established nuisance, no proven trespass, and no abuse of process.

The appellants alleged the trial judge failed to decide on the merits, provided inadequate reasons, and demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the reasons adequate, credibility findings entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant, a general surgeon, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for medical negligence in the treatment of an 11-year-old patient who presented with abdominal pain.

The surgeon discharged the patient without ordering imaging or hospital admission, providing discharge instructions that the patient should only return if her condition worsened.

The patient's appendix subsequently ruptured, causing significant bowel damage.

The trial judge found the surgeon breached the standard of care in both his assessment and discharge instructions, and that causation was established.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on standard of care or causation.

The court also addressed the inordinate delay in releasing reasons but concluded it did not impede fair adjudication.

Two former employees of MD Physician Services Inc. and MD Management Limited appealed a trial judgment finding that they breached non-solicitation agreements with their former employer.

The employees left MD in 2013 to join RBC Dominion Securities Inc., a competitor, and immediately began contacting MD's clients from memory to solicit their business.

The appellants argued the non-solicitation clause was ambiguous and unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the clause was clear and reasonable, and that the employees' conduct constituted a breach of the non-solicitation agreement.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for damages arising from an alleged unlawful arrest on October 14, 2006.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred in finding he was intoxicated, belligerent and aggressive, and that the arrest was without cause.

The appellant also argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the effect of his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by evidence and his legal conclusions regarding the elements of causing a disturbance were correct.

The court also confirmed that an acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude a finding of unlawful arrest in civil proceedings due to different parties and burdens of proof.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to restore the matter to the trial list.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, which carefully considered the relevant facts and issues, including prejudice, and properly applied the correct legal test.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, a collision repair and storage facility, appealed the dismissal of its application to have an initial certificate issued by Intact Insurance under section 24(5) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act declared null and void.

The dispute arose over storage charges for a motor vehicle.

The appellant argued that Intact was not entitled to obtain the certificate because it had not yet paid the vehicle owner for the loss.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that Intact, having assumed liability under the insurance contract, was subrogated to the rights of its insured under section 278 of the Insurance Act and was therefore a person lawfully entitled to the vehicle under the RSLA.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to Intact.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his legal malpractice action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant alleged that the respondent lawyers provided erroneous advice regarding the enforceability of a binding arbitration agreement under North Carolina law in connection with an agreement of purchase and sale.

The appellant commenced his action on October 4, 2013, but had written a notice of pending legal malpractice action on November 23, 2009.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellant discovered his claim by November 23, 2009, and his delay in commencing the action was a tactical choice to await the outcome of related arbitration proceedings, not a justified reason for extending the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its dismissal of a motion by a law firm seeking a charging order or lien against damages and costs awarded to its client.

The law firm sought no costs or alternatively $2,500, arguing the issue was novel and of public importance.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,214.42, arguing the motion lacked merit and was an attempt to burden him with additional costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the law firm's arguments and refusing to permit set-off against legal fees owed by the respondent.