Case Law › Ontario Court of Appeal

[1]           Although the threshold for granting leave to appeal pursuant to s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 (“POA”), is very high, I am satisfied that this case is one where the resolution of a question of law alone may have an impact on the jurisprudence in a way that is of interest to the public at large: Ontario (Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., 2011...

[1]           Before it convicted the appellant of second degree murder, the jury asked a question that made apparent it had been misled by Crown counsel’s incorrect description of the mens rea required for murder. The trial judge’s attempt to clarify the law was inadequate. Therefore, a new trial is necessary.

[1]           This is an appeal from a decision granting the respondent summary judgment under a labour and materials payment bond issued by the appellant.

[1]           In fairness to the trial/sentencing judge, the issue of “serious bodily harm” was not litigated in front of him. That said, based on his own findings, including that “it is an understatement to say that the [sexual] assault has been life altering and the impact is profound”, his conclusion that the offence was not one where serious bodily harm was caused is a clear error. See, for...

[1]           Even assuming the trial judge made the error alleged by referring to the impugned aggravating factor in our view it had no impact on the global sentence imposed.

[1]           This is an appeal by The Basilian Fathers of Toronto (“the Basilians”) of a jury verdict and an order for prejudgment interest. The Basilians claim the jury instruction on how to assess damages for past income loss was wrong, the punitive damages award was excessive, and prejudgment interest ought not to have been awarded at the rate of 5%.