Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil DecisionsCriminal Decisions

Good morning.

Please find our summaries of the four substantive civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released last week.

In 4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., the Court ordered the appeal to be heard in writing over the objection of one of the parties, finding there was nothing in the Courts of Justice Act or the Rules of Civil Procedure that prevented the Court from doing so in these extraordinary times.

Other topics covered last week included the disclosure of financial information by a limited partnership to its limited partners, stay pending appeal in a family law/substitute decisions context, and an appeal from an order dismissing an action as an abuse of process after the motion judge had refused to adjourn the motion for the third time.

Wishing everyone continued health and a productive week ahead.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

TriDelta Investment Counsel Inc. v. GTA Mixed-Use Developments GP Inc., 2020 ONCA 294

Keywords: Business Associations, Limited Partnerships, Disclosure, Financial Information, Civil Procedure, Applications, Procedural Fairness, Limited Partnership Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.16

Volk v. Volk, 2020 ONCA 297

Keywords: Family Law, Wills and Estates, Real Property, Matrimonial Home, Substitute Decisions, Powers of Attorney, Guardianship, Passing of Accounts, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Substitute Decisions Act, RSO, 1990 c 30, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37.14, RJR-Macdonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311

4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 303

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Procedural and Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Form of Hearing, In Writing, COVID-19, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss 2-9, 132-134, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 61, R. v. Anderson, 2014 SCC 41, R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, Courts of Justice Act, Rules of Civil Procedure, Practice Direction Regarding the Electronic Conduct of Matters During the COVID-19 Emergency

Laski v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2020 ONCA 300

Keywords: Wills and Estates, Undue Influence, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Procedural and Natural Justice, Adjournments, Issue Estoppel, Res Judicata, Khimji v Dhanani (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 790 (C.A.)

Criminal Decisions

R. v. G., 2020 ONCA 296

Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Jury Instructions, R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, R. v. MacKinnon (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Poitras (2002), 57 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), R. v. Azzam, 2008 ONCA 467, R. v. Khan, 2007 ONCA 779

R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 298

Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Trafficking, Criminal Code, ss. 185, 186, 492.1(1), R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, R. v. Lising, 2005 SCC 66, R. v. Green, 2015 ONCA 579, R. v. McKenzie, 2016 ONSC 242, World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23, R. v. Paryniuk, 2017 ONCA 87, R. v. Vivar, 2009 ONCA 433, R. v. Riley (2009), 246 C.C.C. (3d) 552 (Ont. S.C.J.), R. v. Skeete, 2012 ONSC 737, Lewis v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821, R. v. Darnley, 2020 ONCA 179, R. v. Sheriffe, 2015 ONCA 880, R. v. Salah, 2015 ONCA 23, R. v. Sarrazin, 2010 ONCA 577, R. v. Sanghera, 2012 BCSC 993

R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 299

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, Dangerous Offenders, Criminal Code, ss. 264, 718, 753.01, R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61, R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58

R. v. R., 2020 ONCA 302

Keywords: Criminal Law, Weapons Offences, Theft, Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Custody

R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Credibility, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(d), Criminal Code, s. 650, R. v. Laws (1998), 128 C.C.C. (3d) 516 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Peavoy (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.A.), R. v. White (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 373 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Schell (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 230, R. v. Jorgge, 2013 ONCA 485, 4 C.R. (7th) 170, R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290, R. v. Cavan (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Kokotailo, 2008 BCCA 168, R. v. Khan (1998), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Marshall (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, R. v. Quartey, 2018 ABCA 12, 430 D.L.R. (4th) 381, R. v. Gilbert, 2015 ONCA 927, 343 O.A.C. 199, R. v. Roble, 2004 CanLII 23106 (Ont. C.A.)

R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Defences, Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent, Evidence, Credibility, Criminal Code, ss. 271, s. 650(1), 684, 686, R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291, R. v. White (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 373 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Schell (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, R. v. Cavan (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Kokotailo, 2008 BCCA 168, R. v. Khan (1998), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Marshall (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, R. v. Peavoy (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.A.), R. v. Jorgge, 2013 ONCA 485, R. v. Brown, 2018 ONCA 9, R. v. Roble, 2004 CanLII 23106 (Ont. C.A.)

R. v. P.W., 2020 ONCA 301

Keywords: Criminal Law, Child Pornography, Evidence, Search Warrants, Sentencing, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2), Criminal Code, ss. 161, 487,  Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689, R. v. Mack, 2014 SCC 58, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 3, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Kitaitchik (2002), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 14 (Ont. C.A.), CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada(Attorney General), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743, R. v. McGuffie, 2016 ONCA 365, R. v. Schulz, 2018 ONCA 598


CIVIL DECISIONS

TriDelta Investment Counsel Inc. v. GTA Mixed-Use Developments GP Inc., 2020 ONCA 294

[Doherty, Juriansz and Paciocco JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Simon Bieber and Michael Darcy, for the appellants
Christopher Naudie and Lauren Tomasich, for the respondents

Keywords:Business Associations, Limited Partnerships, Disclosure, Financial Information, Civil Procedure, Applications, Procedural Fairness, Limited Partnership Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.16

facts:

This appeal concerns three limited partnerships in which the appellants are the general partners, and the respondents (“TriDelta”) are limited partners. The partnerships were formed to acquire interests in various real estate development projects. These interests were ultimately acquired through “project companies” controlled by the limited partnerships and managed by the same person who controls all of the shares of the general partners.

TriDelta does not have a direct interest in the project companies or their assets. TriDelta holds units in the limited partnership. Under the limited partnership agreements (the “LPA”), TriDelta’s investment in the limited partnerships is to be recouped from the profits, if any, earned through the development of the projects.

The working relationship between TriDelta and the appellants began to deteriorate in early 2018, when the appellants came under new management. Shortly thereafter, TriDelta brought an application under the Limited Partnerships Act (the “Act”) to compel the appellants to provide financial information. In his endorsement, the application judge ordered the appellants to produce most of the material sought by TriDelta. He also directed that the annual reports and semi-annual reports prepared by the appellants contain certain material and information specified in his order. The appellants appealed that order.

issues:

(1) Did the application judge err in making orders in respect of an issue that was not properly raised before him?

(2) Did the application judge err in imposing requirements on the contents of the annual report going beyond the requirements agreed upon by the parties in the LPA?

holding:

Appeal dismissed.

reasoning:

(1) No. The Court rejected the appellants’ submission that they did not have adequate notice that the application judge would be asked to make an order dealing with the contents of the annual report. Although it was not clear from the record whether this argument was put to the application judge, the Court noted that there was no reference to any such argument in the endorsement, nor was there any reference made in the facta filed on appeal. Moreover, the Court found that the application generated a sizeable record which ultimately demonstrated that, well before the hearing, both parties were operating on the basis that the annual and semi-annual reports could provide the vehicle for production of at least some of the material sought by TriDelta. Although TriDelta’s position as to what information and material it sought included in the annual report did not crystallize until shortly before argument, the Court held that the appellants had ample notice and full opportunity to make their case in respect of the particulars of any order to be made. The Court further noted that while TriDelta’s initial application did not refer to the content of the annual report, it was clear based on the timing of the application that the annual report was not due for several months at that point. However, by the time that the application was heard, the annual report for the fiscal year was late. The Court held that it was therefore understandable that TriDelta would look to the pending annual report as a means of providing the necessary disclosure.

(2) No. The Court held that there was no prejudice to the appellants resulting from the application judge’s direction that the material be included in the annual and semi-annual reports. In this regard, the Court held that because s. 10 of the Act gives limited partners very broad rights to information “concerning all matters affecting the limited partnership”, it was open to the application judge to conclude that the information and material sought by TriDelta “affected the limited partnership”. The Court also held that it was open to the application judge to determine the means by which the required disclosure should be made.

The Court further rejected the appellants’ submission that by requiring the material be placed in the annual report, the application judge relieved TriDelta of having to demonstrate the need for information and material on an annual basis by placing the obligation on the appellants to provide the information annually. In making its determination on this point, the Court noted that it was only obvious that TriDelta wanted the information to which it was entitled on an ongoing basis. In this regard, the Court held that so long as the partnership operated, there was no reason to think that TriDelta would not require the information to which is was entitled in the future.


Volk v. Volk, 2020 ONCA 297

[Miller JA (In Chambers)]

Counsel:

JW Switzer, for the moving parties

EA Brohm, for the responding party GV

Keywords: Property Law, Order to Vacate, Order for Sale, Guardianship, Passing of Accounts, Substitute Decisions Act, RSO, 1990 c 30, Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, r37.14, RJR-Macdonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311

facts:

The responding party, GV, brought an application as a dependant of his wife, DV, under the Substitute Decisions Act, seeking, among other things, guardianship over DV’s property and personal care, and a passing of accounts related to the sale of GV and DV’s matrimonial home by the moving parties acting under DV’s power of attorney for property. GV alleged that one of the moving parties purchased a property in her name with the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The order granted in favour of GV required the moving party, DM and her partner to vacate the property, that the property be listed for sale, and that the proceeds of sale be paid to GV in trust for DV.

The moving parties requested a stay of the order pending appeal.

issue:

Should a stay be granted?

holding:

Motion dismissed.

reasoning:

No. The moving parties did not meet their onus on the first branch of the RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) test—that there is a serious question be tried—and therefore it was sufficient for the Court to dismiss the motion. The Court held that the moving parties did not identify a plausible ground of appeal related to their non-attendance at the interim motion. The Court found that the moving parties were validly served and the onus was not on the responding party to persuade the moving parties to attend. Furthermore, the moving parties had not identified how the powers of the court under the Substitute Decisions Act were exercised in error related to the order for sale of the property.

Despite it not being necessary to consider the two other branches of the RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) test, the Court elected to do so anyway. The Court held that the moving parties did not meet their onus on the second factor—the moving party will suffer irreparable harm—nor the third factor–balance of convenience favours granting the stay—because neither of the moving parties resided at the property or had more than a minimal financial interest.


4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 303

[Roberts J.A. (Case Management Judge)]

Counsel:

Mark A. Gelowitz, Allan D. Coleman and Lia Bruschetta, for the appellant
Linda Fuerst and Fahad Siddiqui, for the respondents SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., SNC-Lavalin Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Highway Holdings Inc.
Eliot N. Kolers and Alexander Rose, for the respondents 7577702 Canada Inc. and MICI Inc.

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Procedural and Natural Justice, Right to be Heard, Form of Hearing, In Writing, COVID-19, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss 2-9, 132-134, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 61, R. v. Anderson, 2014 SCC 41, R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, Courts of Justice Act, Rules of Civil Procedure, Practice Direction Regarding the Electronic Conduct of Matters During the COVID-19 Emergency

facts:

This appeal was scheduled to be heard on April 16, 2020, but was adjourned sine die due to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. The parties appeared before the Case Management Judge for a case management conference to determine how this matter will proceed. The appellant objected to the appeal proceeding in writing, as suggested by the respondents. It argued that this court would not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in writing over a party’s objection.

issues:

Does the Court have jurisdiction to order a civil appeal to be heard in writing?

holding:

The appeal was ordered to be heard in writing.

reasoning:

The appellant submitted that the Court has limited supervisory jurisdiction over its own process, restricted to governing administrative details, and cannot order an appeal be heard in writing over the objection of one of the parties to the appeal. This, according to appellant, would run contrary to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandate an oral hearing of a civil appeal unless the parties consent to an appeal in writing.

It is well settled that the Court’s implicit or ancillary jurisdiction to manage its own process is broad. The Court has the jurisdiction to make any procedural order to prevent an abuse of process or to ensure the just and efficient administration of justice. The Court’s implicit powers include those that are reasonably necessary to accomplish the Court’s mandate and perform its intended functions. They arise by necessary implication even in the absence of express statutory or common law authority

The exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction to manage its own process by directing that some appeals proceed on the written record is not inconsistent with any provision of the Courts of Justice Act or the Rules of Civil Procedure, which, in any event, do not mandate the absolute right to an oral hearing of an appeal. The Courts of Justice Act prescribes the composition of the Court of Appeal, but not the mode of hearings.

It is also beyond controversy that the COVID-19 pandemic has created extraordinary circumstances to which all stakeholders adapt as best they can. As a result, appeals are being heard in writing or remotely until in-person appeals can resume. Case management conferences are being held to manage and schedule them. Accordingly, it is well within this Court’s jurisdiction to order that a civil appeal be heard in writing when the due administration of justice requires it.


Laski v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2020 ONCA 300

[Pepall, van Rensburg, and Paciocco JJ.A.]

Counsel:

W.L., acting in person
Andrew Parley and Jonathan Chen, for the respondents

Keywords: Wills and Estates, Undue Influence, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Procedural and Natural Justice, Adjournments, Issue Estoppel, Res Judicata, Khimji v Dhanani (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 790 (C.A.)

facts:

This case involved the transfer of more than $400,000 in securities owned jointly by the late HL and one of the beneficiaries under his will, WL, to BMO. This transfer had the effect of giving WL the right of survivorship to the securities and removing them from HL’s estate where they would have also benefitted the appellant, WSL. The appellant argued the transfer was fraudulent, and that WL exercised undue influence over HL. The appellant commenced an application for various determinations under HL’s will, including whether joint accounts in the name of WL and HL formed part of HL’s estate, or whether they passed by right of survivorship to WL. WL sued the appellant, among other things, for partition and sale of a condominium jointly owned by HL, WSL and WL. These proceedings were consolidated (the “Consolidated Proceedings”). The appellant sued BMO and a former BMO investment advisor (“Advisor”) claiming they engaged in negligent misrepresentation or breached a duty of disclosure to him. The motion judge struck the appellant’s claim under the issue estoppel branch of the doctrine of res judicata as having been previously determined in the Consolidated Proceedings.

issues:

(1) Did the motion judge err in not adjourning the motion and proceeding in the appellant’s absence?

(2) Did the motion judge err in granting the respondents’ motion on the merits?

holding:

Appeal dismissed.

reasoning:

(1) No. This was the third date set for argument of the motion. The first two motions were adjourned based on the appellant’s request due to medical reasons. The appellant did not provide any details with respect to why he was unable to attend the motions. The appellant was warned that there would be no further adjournments absent a medical note providing more specific information about his limitations.

(2) No. The appellant alleged that the respondents negligently mispresented the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the securities into the joint account of WL and HL, or alternatively, that they breached a duty of disclosure by failing to disclose to him that HL had changed his mind about leaving the contents of the account to WL. The former claim is premised on the contention that the Advisor furnished false information after conspiring with WL. It had been concluded that there was no conspiracy between WL and the Advisor. This finding fully disposed of the negligent misrepresentation claim. The latter claim cannot succeed because the appellant pleaded in his statement of claim that, after HL died, the Advisor had advised him that HL had changed his mind and had left the money in issue to WL. The motion judge also found that the appellant sustained no damages.


CRIMINAL DECISIONS

R. v. G., 2020 ONCA 296

[Watt, Lauwers and Paciocco JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Andrew Furgiuele, for the appellant

Holly Loubert, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Jury Instructions, R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, R. v. MacKinnon (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Poitras (2002), 57 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), R. v. Azzam, 2008 ONCA 467, R. v. Khan, 2007 ONCA 779

R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 298

[Strathy C.J.O., Miller and Trotter JJ.A.]

Counsel:

James Lockyer and Craig Zeeh, for the appellant
Frank Au and Gerald Brienza, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Trafficking, Criminal Code, ss. 185, 186, 492.1(1), R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, R. v. Lising, 2005 SCC 66, R. v. Green, 2015 ONCA 579, R. v. McKenzie, 2016 ONSC 242, World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23, R. v. Paryniuk, 2017 ONCA 87, R. v. Vivar, 2009 ONCA 433, R. v. Riley (2009), 246 C.C.C. (3d) 552 (Ont. S.C.J.), R. v. Skeete, 2012 ONSC 737, Lewis v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821, R. v. Darnley, 2020 ONCA 179, R. v. Sheriffe, 2015 ONCA 880, R. v. Salah, 2015 ONCA 23, R. v. Sarrazin, 2010 ONCA 577, R. v. Sanghera, 2012 BCSC 993

R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 299

[Rouleau, Zarnett and Jamal JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant
Nicolas de Montigny, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, Dangerous Offenders, Criminal Code, ss. 264, 718, 753.01, R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61, R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58

R. v. R., 2020 ONCA 302

[MacPherson, Pardu and Trotter JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Amanda Warth, for the appellant
Michael Fawcett, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Weapons Offences, Theft, Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Custody

R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291

[Feldman, Tulloch and Jamal JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Riaz Sayani, for the appellant
Nicole Rivers, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Credibility, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(d), Criminal Code, s. 650, R. v. Laws (1998), 128 C.C.C. (3d) 516 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Peavoy (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.A.), R. v. White (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 373 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Schell (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 230, R. v. Jorgge, 2013 ONCA 485, 4 C.R. (7th) 170, R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290, R. v. Cavan (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Kokotailo, 2008 BCCA 168, R. v. Khan (1998), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Marshall (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, R. v. Quartey, 2018 ABCA 12, 430 D.L.R. (4th) 381, R. v. Gilbert, 2015 ONCA 927, 343 O.A.C. 199, R. v. Roble, 2004 CanLII 23106 (Ont. C.A.)

R. v. M.D., 2020 ONCA 290

[Feldman, Harvison Young and Jamal JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant

Catherine Weiler, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Defences, Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent, Evidence, Credibility, Criminal Code, ss. 271, s. 650(1), 684, 686, R. v. G.V., 2020 ONCA 291, R. v. White (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 373 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Schell (2000), 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Thain, 2009 ONCA 223, R. v. Cavan (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Kokotailo, 2008 BCCA 168, R. v. Khan (1998), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (B.C.C.A.), R. v. Marshall (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, R. v. Peavoy (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 620 (C.A.), R. v. Jorgge, 2013 ONCA 485, R. v. Brown, 2018 ONCA 9, R. v. Roble, 2004 CanLII 23106 (Ont. C.A.)

R. v. P.W., 2020 ONCA 301

[Miller, Fairburn and Thorburn JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Richard Litkowski, for the appellant

Scott Patterson, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Child Pornography, Evidence, Search Warrants, Sentencing, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2), Criminal Code, ss. 161, 487,  Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689, R. v. Mack, 2014 SCC 58, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 3, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Kitaitchik (2002), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 14 (Ont. C.A.), CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada(Attorney General), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743, R. v. McGuffie, 2016 ONCA 365, R. v. Schulz, 2018 ONCA 598


The information contained in our summaries of the decisions is not intended to provide legal advice and does not necessarily cover every matter raised in a decision. For complete information or for specific advice, please read the decision or contact us.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of John Polyzogopoulos John Polyzogopoulos

John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with almost two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with…

John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with almost two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles professional discipline and professional negligence matters, as well as complex estates and matrimonial litigation. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.