Case Law › Ontario Court of Appeal

[1] Tafari Gerson-Foster was ostensibly arrested on a surety warrant. That arrest led to a pat down search incident to arrest, and a subsequent strip search. Each of the searches produced evidence that supported the convictions that Mr. Gerson-Foster now appeals, namely, possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking contrary to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19., s. 5(2

[1] Gary Lai and Kevin Lai, the appellants, were each convicted of three counts of possessing narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime. The evidence supporting these convictions arose from a contentious warrantless search of their apartment, which led to a further search pursuant to a warrant. The trial judge found the warrantless search to be unconstitutional,

[1] The motion judge dismissed the appellants' action, against the named judicial officials and the named court staff defendants, under r. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The appellants have filed an appeal from the motion judge's decision. The moving parties now seek an order under r. 2.

[1] This is an appeal from summary judgment on the respondent's claim without set-off or a stay pending the counterclaim. The appellants say that the motion judge erred in three broad respects.

[1] Les appelants soulèvent deux motifs d'appel :

[1] On November 22, 2006, Sheab Afifi was found not criminally responsible for mischief under $5,000 (x2), assault and uttering threats. Mr. Afifi has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder (partial remission), alcohol use disorder (sustained remission) and anti-social personality disorder. He is capable of consenting to his own treatment. He was subject to a detention order and

[1] The appellant, Ai Ming Bao, was convicted of one count of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. His conviction rested on the fleeting observation of a police officer, who identified the appellant as the driver of a vehicle that sped past him at 50 km/h.

[1] M. Ostainvil demande une ordonnance de radier la décision de la juge Pardu qui a refusé de prolonger le délai pour interjeter appel de la décision de la cour supérieure. La juge Pardu a accepté que M. Ostainvil ait manifesté l'intention d'interjeter appel durant le délai prescrit. Elle a aussi accepté son explication pour le retard; et que le défendeur ne subirait pas de préjudice. Elle a...

[1] The appellant 1004335 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. A.D. Metro (“ADM”) is a manufacturer and supplier of touchscreens. From 2008 to 2012, ADM supplied more than 17,000 touchscreens to the respondent DW Digital Wireless LP (“DW”), a designer and manufacturer of mobile display terminals (“MDTs”) used in taxis and buses.

[1] At the hearing of this appeal, the appellant did not pursue the conviction appeal and it was dismissed. The appellant's sentence appeal was reserved. For the reasons that follow, the sentence appeal is also dismissed.

[1] The appellant appeals from the order of Gibson J. dated October 18, 2018 (the “October Order”) made on motion by the respondent to strike the appellant's pleadings for failure to pay child support in accordance with the order of Miller J. dated June 7, 2018 (the “June Order”). On the return of the motion, counsel for the appellant requested an adjournment to allow time to file responding...

[1] This is a motion for a stay of an order of this court pending the filing and disposition of the moving parties' intended application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and, if leave is granted, pending the final disposition of the appeal.

[1] Mr. Cox was convicted of a number of offences relating to a robbery with a firearm that occurred in 2010. At the sentencing hearing held in 2015 he conceded his designation as a dangerous offender based on the state of the law at that date.

[1] Duty Counsel raised two grounds of appeals. The first is with respect to the conviction for break and enter. Crown counsel agrees that the trial judge erred by failing to address the issue of the appellant's apparent intoxication in the context of a specific intent offence, although defence counsel did not raise any objection at trial.

[1] Ms. Theberge-Lindsay, the respondent, began working in Dr. Kutcher's dental practice in 1993. Over the succeeding years, Dr. Kutcher restructured his dental practice in various ways to minimize income taxes and split income. To maintain her employment with Dr. Kutcher, Ms. Theberge-Lindsay was required to sign a series of employment agreements starting in 1999, all of which limited her...

[1] The appellant seeks another adjournment to retain Mr. Murphy but Mr. Murphy advised the Crown that he has not been retained and doesn't expect to be. In those circumstances, there is no basis to consider a further adjournment. Duty counsel is not in a position to assist the appellant. He advised the court that he is abandoning the appeal.

[1] The appellant seeks a reduction of his sentence of three years, consisting of two years for the robbery and 12 months for the dangerous driving. The appellant suggests that the trial judge should have made the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive.

[1] The appellant seeks leave to appeal his sentence for robbery, use of an imitation firearm and breaking and entering in the context of a home invasion. He received seven and a half years broken down as follows: four and half years for the robbery, four and half years concurrent for the break and enter, three years consecutive for use of the imitation firearm. This was also consecutive to the...

[1] The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in finding him a party to the use of a firearm in the course of a drive-by shooting.

[1] The respondent commenced an action against the appellant and others for breach of contract and breach of trust under the provisions of the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-30. The action was brought under the simplified procedure and the respondent obtained a judgment against the appellants on a summary judgment motion.

[1] This appeal began with the arbitration of a grievance concerning the dismissal of Christopher Seivright, a temporary postal worker and member of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (the “respondent” or the “Union”). The arbitrator allowed the grievance and ordered Mr. Seivright's reinstatement. Canada Post Corporation (the “appellant” or the “Corporation”) filed an application for judicial...

[1] The appellant seeks leave to appeal one aspect of his sentence pertaining to sentence calculation. Specifically, he seeks a sentence reduction of 25 days to account for the approximately two months of time he could have been earning remission toward parole eligibility with respect to the sentence before the court, had the Crown been able to proceed with sentencing on the original date as...

[1] The appellant owned and operated a motor vehicle that was involved in a collision on May 31, 2014. He was charged by the respondent Constable Brad Verspeeten with careless driving. The charge was withdrawn on May 16, 2016. The appellant was convinced that he had been wrongfully charged and issued a statement of claim. See the earlier endorsement of Faieta J. dated July 27, 2016, with reasons...

[1] The appellant, Aldo Simoni, and four co-defendants were charged as a result of the vault-breaking of a bank in Burlington. At trial, the appellant testified that he participated in the vault breaking under duress. He was convicted. After conviction, his trial counsel intended to bring a Carosella application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of lost evidence. However, such an application

[1] The appellant appeals from the November 15, 2018 Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) disposition ordering his detention pursuant to a hybrid order, which allows him to transition from a secure forensic unit to a general forensic unit, with the privilege of community living as appropriate.

[1] The appellant was convicted under ss. 7(1) and 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, for the offences of producing marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking. We dismissed the appeal orally, for the following reasons.

[1] The plaintiff, Craig Hurst, was an employee of the respondent Darwin Productions Inc. (“Darwin”). The respondent, James Hancock, was the principal of Darwin. Mr. Hurst consulted a law firm, the intervenors Graham Partners LLP, Graham, Wilson & Green and HGR Graham Partners LLP (collectively “Graham” or “the appellants”) when he was not being paid extra salary he claimed was agreed upon...

[1] The appellant was convicted of forcible confinement. The Crown alleged that the appellant, his brother, and a third man came to the complainant's place of employment, confined him in a car, and drove him around Rexdale in an effort to force the complainant to contact his brother about a debt. The confinement lasted for about an hour and the complainant was not physically harmed.

[1] The motion judge made an order striking out the appellant's statement of claim on two bases: failure to pay outstanding costs orders and failure to show a potential cause of action.

[1] The Orchard fresh evidence that the appellant seeks to introduce is not in a form that we can consider. As a result, the December 5, 2018 judgment of Turnbull J. should be enforced according to its terms.