Canada Case Law

Williams v. Williams

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the trial judge denied the mother natural justice by failing to give timely and adequate notice that her decision-making role might be extinguished, failed to apply the required legal analysis for varying an existing order (no finding of material change in circumstances), and materially misapprehended evidence about the mother's decision-making and cooperation; accordingly the decision-making portion of the order was set aside and the mother reinstated as primary decision-maker subject to consultation obligations with the father and stepfather.

Source excerpt

• Decision-making authority
• Best interests of the child
• Variation of existing parenting order
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Remedy on appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. T.B.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a conviction for the May 2023 sexual assault, finding no reversible misapprehension of evidence or insufficiency of reasons.

• Sexual assault
• Assault
• Recovered memory
• Credibility and reliability
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Sufficiency of reasons

Read case analysis

R. v. Singh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge properly considered the totality of undisputed and disputed evidence, applied the correct burden and standard of proof (reasonable doubt), gave adequate weight to both objective indicia and relevant subjective factors in characterizing the relationship, and did not make a material misapprehension or reverse the burden; accordingly the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant occupied a position of authority and the conviction for sexual exploitation stands.

Source excerpt

• Sexual exploitation s.153
• Position of authority
• Reasonable doubt (w.(d.))
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Burden of proof
• Mistake of law vs mistake of fact

Read case analysis

R. v. Khurana

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Although the trial judge misstated the radar device's target capabilities, that mischaracterization was minor and not material; the conviction was properly based on admissible and reliable evidence (officer's tested radar reading, his fortified visual speed estimate and pacing of vehicles) and the trial judge conducted an adequate W.(D.) credibility analysis without palpable and overriding error; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.

Source excerpt

• Speeding
• Radar evidence
• Visual speed estimates
• Credibility assessment
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Unreasonable verdict

Read case analysis

R. v. S.J.A.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was admitted and the appellant's convictions were set aside because the trial judge materially misapprehended the appellant's evidence, rendering the verdict unsafe; a stay of proceedings was not warranted because the high threshold for a stay ('clearest of cases') was not met and a new trial is an adequate and proportionate remedy.

Source excerpt

• Stay of proceedings
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Abuse of process
• Retrial
• Judicial misconduct

Read case analysis

R. v. Clarke

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Alex Clarke’s sexual assault conviction, rejecting claims of misapprehended evidence, irrational reasoning, and stereotype-based credibility findings.

• Consent
• Credibility assessment
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Stereotyping and commonsense assumptions
• Honest but mistaken belief in consent
• Remedy: new trial

Read case analysis

Larkin v. Bourque

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge reasonably found the respondent had lawful justification as a process server to approach and knock at the dwelling, the signage and history did not establish revocation of the implied licence, the trial reasons were sufficient for appellate review, and no misapprehension of evidence or legal error that caused a miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.

Source excerpt

• Trespass
• Implied licence to approach dwelling
• Sufficiency of reasons
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Summary conviction appeal

Read case analysis

Glioza v. Ardalani

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed in part because the trial judge misapprehended uncontested evidence that the appellant paid $43,149 of the child's private school fees from the Dempsey sale proceeds, warranting a reduction of the equalization payment by half that amount ($21,574.50); all other challenges failed because the judge's discretionary and factual findings (including admission of the jointly commissioned appraisal, refusal to account for speculative selling costs, income determinations and denial of spousal support) were supported by the record and not tainted by reviewable error.

Source excerpt

• Equalization payment
• Division of family property
• Income determination for support
• Expert appraisal admissibility
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

Smiley v. The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The motion judge did not misapprehend or fail to consider material evidence; weighing efficiency, fairness and comity factors, Quebec is the clearly more appropriate forum for the dispute (given Foundation contacts, contracts and evidence), the stay of the Newfoundland and Labrador action is upheld, and post-decision Quebec proceedings were admissible as additional evidence on appeal under the Palmer/rule 37 test.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction simpliciter
• Forum non conveniens analysis (efficiency, fairness, comity)
• Access to justice
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Admission of fresh/new evidence (palmer/rule 37)
• Choice of law clauses

Read case analysis

R. v. Yizhak

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Alex Yizhak’s conviction appeal and sentence appeal, holding the constructive possession finding was reasonable and the 20-month custodial sentence fit.

• Firearms possession
• Circumstantial evidence
• Constructive possession
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Sentencing
• Appellate review

Read case analysis