Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Leave to appeal was denied on the fraud causation issue and granted only on whether R. v. Hodgson changes the test for entering a conviction on appeal under the Provincial Offences Act.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for leave to appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from refusal to extend time in a Part I POA matter.
The court set aside a Provincial Court ruling refusing to reopen a deemed conviction, finding the reasons were too unclear to show a reasonable analysis under Vavilov.
Appeal dismissed because the appellants’ deliberate failure to pay the statutory condition of appeal was independent of their paralegal’s performance, no prejudice was shown as the waiver had no reasonable prospect of success, and the substantive appeal lacked merit (use of Regulation maps was proper and the sentence and remediation order were appropriate).
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the appeal court and sentencing justice erred by restricting consideration of corporate size to the local store and by treating an individual-offender precedent as directly comparable to a corporation; those errors materially impacted the fine, and a $40,000 fine plus victim fine surcharge is appropriate to achieve specific and general deterrence given the respondent operates seven stores employing 84 FTEs.
Source excerpt
Changes to Schedule A effected by orders of the local regional senior judge under s.91.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, including changes to short form wording and set fine amounts, do not amend or invalidate the substantive prohibitions contained in the body of the by-law; Schedule A functioned as a placeholder for set fines to be specified by the RSJ, and therefore the by-law remained valid. The appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The application is barred by s.131(3) of the Provincial Offences Act; even if Hillmond applied, the applicants failed to show any jurisdictional failure by the motion judge, therefore the application to set aside the motion judge's order is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court held the Crown could appeal an acquittal on excessive speeding despite a conviction on the lesser offence, and ordered a new trial.
Leave to appeal was denied because the moving party failed to establish special grounds or a pure question of law essential to the public interest or administration of justice: the alleged bias did not overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality and the appeal judge reasonably exercised discretion to dismiss for non-compliance with his order; the limitation-period complaint depended on factual findings about ongoing construction and was not a legal issue warranting leave.
Source excerpt
Motions for leave to appeal under s.131 of the POA brought by represented parties are presumptively to be heard orally because POA r.3 and Form 1, read in context and informed by settled Court of Appeal practice, contemplate an oral hearing; where the POA Rules are silent on procedural details such as exchange of facta, the Rules of Civil Procedure (r.61.03.1) may be applied to fill the gap, but the presumption of an oral hearing for represented moving parties stands and written hearings remain available only in appropriate cases.
Source excerpt
Explore more
