Robert A. Blair

The appellants appealed an order declaring that their medical malpractice action against the hospital defendants had been settled.

The motion judge had found that the appellants' offer to consent to a dismissal was contingent on the remaining defendants undertaking not to allege negligence against the hospital defendants, and that this undertaking had been fulfilled.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants had revoked their offer in writing before the remaining defendants purported to fulfill the undertaking.

As the offer was withdrawn before the condition precedent was met, no settlement was reached.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding child custody and the language of instruction, and requested written submissions on costs.

The appellant argued he was successful on the critical issue of the importance of the children's language of instruction, despite the appeal being dismissed due to the children having remained in French immersion for three additional years.

The respondent argued she was entirely successful and sought $25,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court applied the usual rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, but reduced the respondent's award to $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis to reflect the appellant's partial success in demonstrating an error by the trial judge.

The owner of a residential apartment complex defaulted on natural gas payments.

The City of Hamilton intervened under its Vital Services By-law, paid for the gas, registered a lien, and directed tenants to pay rent to the City pursuant to s. 221(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The first mortgagee subsequently sold the property under power of sale to a bona fide purchaser for value.

The City claimed its statutory right to collect rents survived the sale.

The Court of Appeal held that the City's right to direct rent payments is a statutory collection device, not an interest in land, and does not survive the transfer of the property to a bona fide purchaser for value.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against a private religious school, its former headmasters, and the local Anglican Diocese for historical abuse.

The motion judge refused certification against all respondents, but specifically dismissed the action against the Diocese for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court held it had jurisdiction under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear the appeal regarding the Diocese, as it was a final order dismissing the action, not merely a refusal to certify.

On the merits, the Court upheld the dismissal, finding the pleadings failed to establish sufficient proximity to ground a duty of care or a fiduciary relationship between the Diocese and the students.

The Court declined to join the appeal regarding the other respondents, transferring it to the Divisional Court.

The respondents brought a motion to strike a paragraph of the notice of appeal.

The appellants sought to raise a new argument on appeal that a six-year limitation period applied under the transition provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002, despite conceding a two-year limitation period before the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion and struck the paragraph, finding that permitting the new ground of appeal would cause prejudice to the moving party, who would have developed a different evidentiary record had the argument been raised below.

The appellant, a permanent resident of Quebec, was catastrophically injured by an uninsured automobile in Ontario.

She received a non-pecuniary damage indemnity under the SAAQ and sought to recover the full uninsured limits under her mother's Ontario automobile insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal held that the SAAQ benefit was deductible from the uninsured limits pursuant to s. 2(1)(b) of Reg. 676 to avoid double recovery, and that this regulation did not conflict with s. 267.8(7) of the Insurance Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order denying her access to her children and maintaining their placement with their father under the supervision of the Children's Aid Society.

The mother had not seen her children since 2007 due to unaddressed mental health issues and had failed to comply with previous court orders requiring her to seek psychiatric assessment and treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' decisions or in the refusal to grant an adjournment, and upheld the costs award against the mother.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

The action concerned entitlement to the assets of a Chinese company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction because the personal defendants resided and were served in Ontario, and had attorned to the jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence and taking other steps in the action.

The issue of forum non conveniens was deemed irrelevant.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their action as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellants knew or ought to have known the basis of their claim by April 11, 2005, at the latest.

As the action was not commenced until October 31, 2007, more than two years after the claim was discovered, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application for a declaration that three retention bonuses totaling $475,000 constituted 'pensionable earnings' under the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the bonuses were not a 'regular' part of the appellant's remuneration, as they were payable over three years only and did not continue during automatic renewal terms.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's discretionary refusal to award the appellant costs out of the pension plan, as the litigation was not brought for the benefit of all beneficiaries.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable on a promissory note.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding he signed the note, in finding the funds were advanced to him personally rather than to a corporation, and in allowing the late introduction of the original note at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's factual findings and no procedural unfairness, as the appellant had not pleaded forgery or objected to the document's admission at trial.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to set aside the default judgment.

The Court noted that the damage award exceeded the simplified rules limit, and there were issues regarding statutory deductibles and whether the claim met the threshold.

The default judgment was set aside.

The Crown appealed acquittals on sexual assault and indecent assault charges arising from historical child abuse allegations.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by treating mere opportunity for indirect contact as giving rise to an air of reality to collusion, and by misanalyzing the probative value and prejudicial effect of the proposed similar fact evidence.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held the judge adopted an impermissibly formulaic comparison of similarities and dissimilarities and overstated reasoning prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The errors materially affected the acquittal, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow them to withdraw an admission in their affidavits that the respondents had a right-of-way over the subject lands.

The appellants argued they recently discovered a break in the chain of title.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that permitting the withdrawal would prejudice the respondents by allowing the damages issue to be determined on a different basis than the liability issue.

A guest at the appellant's resort drowned in an unattended indoor swimming pool.

A Ministry of Labour inspector ordered the resort to report the death under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires reporting when a person is killed or critically injured from any cause at a workplace.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Divisional Court upheld the order, finding the pool was a workplace because employees sometimes worked there.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that this interpretation was unreasonable as it would lead to absurd results.

The Court held that s. 51(1) requires a reasonable nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at the site.

The appellant, a third mortgagee, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages for an alleged improvident sale and for an accounting under s. 27 of the Mortgages Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong test, the sale was improvident, and the second mortgagee was not entitled to add the first mortgage payout to its claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the wrong test was applied, the respondent took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property.

The court also held the respondent was entitled to the payout amount under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for child pornography and weapons offences.

He argued the trial judge erred by not severing the charges, admitting his statement, refusing mid-trial disclosure of his computer, and providing the jury with a written copy of the charge.

He also argued the verdict was unreasonable and the sentence for the firearms offence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's discretionary decisions or findings of fact, and held the verdict was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly imposed a consecutive sentence above the minimum for the loaded restricted firearm.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim against the County of Simcoe and its employee, as well as the substantial indemnity costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of malice to defeat the respondents' qualified privilege in gathering information for an Ontario Works file.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the defendants.

The motion judge found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a genuine triable issue regarding whether he suffered a 'visible illness' as a result of the defendants' conduct.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the lack of medical evidence, and dismissed the appeal, including the appeal of the costs order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a recusal motion.

The appellant argued that the case management judge should have recused herself due to improper and inaccurate correspondence sent by the respondents' solicitor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a reasonable, informed member of the public would not have concerns about the judge's impartiality based on the correspondence.