Richard Steven Baldwin

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving 'over 80', raising two grounds.

First, he argued the roadside demand was invalid because the officer did not use the word 'forthwith', which was dismissed based on recent jurisprudence.

Second, he argued his section 7 Charter rights were violated because the technician failed to keep a printout of an aborted second breath sample analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code, a qualified technician may determine in good faith that a sample is unsuitable and demand a further sample.

The results of the aborted analysis of an inadequate sample could not have assisted the defence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for a declaration of entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

She claimed the motor vehicle accident caused or contributed to her rheumatoid arthritis.

The trial judge found the accident was relatively minor and that the expert evidence did not establish it was more probable than not that the accident caused or triggered the onset of the arthritis.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach to causation or assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a long-term employee of an insurance brokerage, was constructively dismissed when her new employer unilaterally transferred her to an office an hour away and impugned her work quality when she objected.

The trial judge awarded damages for constructive dismissal, finding an implied term that she would work in her original location.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judge's decision, holding that it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the location of the workplace was an essential term of the employment contract.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judgment that awarded damages and punitive damages to the defendant arising from a commercial lease of truck trailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the plaintiff breached its maintenance obligations.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the lease regarding early return of trailers and affirmed the punitive damages award, noting that specific damages need not be proven for a breach of contract to support punitive damages.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The employee, a tour foreman, was fired after refusing a new, unpaid weekend on-call requirement due to child care commitments.

He sued for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found the on-call requirement was a material change to the employment contract, constituting constructive dismissal.

The employer appealed, arguing the trial judge exceeded the agreed statement of facts, erred in finding a material change, exhibited bias through preliminary comments, and that the employee failed to mitigate by not accepting the on-call shifts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings and concluding the employee was not obliged to accept the on-call requirement to mitigate damages.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding that their insurer, Royal & SunAlliance, had no duty to defend claims against them arising from a sexual assault committed by an employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the abuse and harassment exclusion clause clearly excluded liability for the sexual assault.

The court rejected the application of the concurrent cause analysis, finding that the negligent supervision claims were subsumed into the intentional tort claim and derived from the sexual assault.

The applicant father sought a $20,000 death benefit from his separated wife's automobile insurer following the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident.

The child lived with his mother and was principally dependent on her for financial support.

The arbitrator held that under section 11(2)(d) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the death benefit is payable only to the single person upon whom the deceased was actually dependent, not to both parents.

The applicant's claim for a death benefit and a special award for unreasonably withheld payments were dismissed, though he was awarded his expenses for advancing an arguable position on a novel legal point.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident, sustaining severe lacerations to his left hand that severed tendons and nerves.

The insurer terminated his weekly income benefits after 156 weeks, arguing he was reasonably suited for alternative occupations.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's education, training, and experience did not equip him for the sedentary or service occupations proposed by the insurer's vocational expert.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant remained continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly income benefits, interest, and arbitration expenses.