Robert A. Blair

The appellant, a target of a Canadian criminal investigation into chocolate price-fixing, appealed an order enforcing a US Letter of Request compelling him to testify in a US class action.

He argued that compelling his testimony would violate his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter and provide the Competition Bureau with an unfair advantage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's rights were adequately protected by use immunity under section 13 of the Charter and the Evidence Acts.

The Court added three conditions to the order to further restrict the Competition Bureau's access to the compelled testimony.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's approval of a settlement entered into by the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian, as well as the approval of legal fees.

The Court of Appeal found ample basis on the record to support the motion judge's conclusions and noted there was no admissible medical evidence to support an order to continue the proceeding without the litigation guardian.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that its accounting records were insufficient to prove expenses properly chargeable to the respondent tenant as Additional Rent under a commercial lease.

The application judge had previously ruled that the lease did not require the tenant to pay standardized management fees, but allowed the landlord a second hearing to prove actual expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the landlord's materials were insufficient.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting the landlord's failure to respond to settlement offers and its role in prolonging the proceeding.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his wife, arguing a lack of motive, improper jury instructions, and insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable based on the totality of the evidence, which included the appellant arriving at the home dressed as a construction worker, bringing a knife, and attempting to kill an eyewitness by stabbing her 13 times.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim against the respondent doctor.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in finding that the cause of the patient's bleeding was an IUD rather than a laceration or perforation caused by the respondent's negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no reviewable error in her assessment of the evidence or exercise of discretion on costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the parties' three children to the respondent mother.

The father argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider ordering the children to attend a homogeneous French-language school as a condition of custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did err in failing to consider such a condition, as the language of education is an important factor in the children's best interests.

However, the Court declined to order a change of schools on appeal, concluding that given the passage of time, it would no longer be in the children's best interests to disrupt their current education in a French immersion program.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant abandoned the appeal on consent without costs.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the appellant's notice of appeal in a family law dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that most of the orders appealed from were interlocutory and outside its jurisdiction.

While the orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home were final, the property had already been sold and the proceeds paid into court, rendering the appeal moot.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted with costs.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to amend their statement of claim to add a proposed defendant and change the location of a slip and fall accident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim against the proposed defendant was statute-barred, as the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court also agreed that the doctrine of misnomer did not apply because the intended defendant did not know it was the target of the suit.

However, the Court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to change the location of the accident as against the existing defendant.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's eight-page reasons were inadequate to permit meaningful review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to more fully address the alleged frailties in the complainant's evidence, the pathway to the conclusion was apparent.

The trial judge had specifically addressed the fact that the complainant lied to the police, finding she was terrified.

The appellants brought a motion to stay their own appeal pending the trial judge's determination of several outstanding issues following a complex, multi-party trial involving allegations of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The respondents opposed the stay, arguing the issues relating to them were discrete and finally disposed of.

The Court of Appeal held that the 'interests of justice' test, rather than the RJR-Macdonald test, applies when a party seeks to stay an appeal pending another body's decision.

Balancing the need for expeditious justice against the benefits of a single appeal, the court granted a 120-day stay of the appeal, on the condition that the appellants immediately order the necessary transcripts.

The appellant, a youth at the time of his initial involvement, was convicted of participating in a terrorist group after attending training camps and committing acts such as shoplifting and removing a surveillance camera.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, erred in admitting his post-arrest statement despite Charter breaches, improperly admitted hearsay evidence under the co-conspirators' exception, and failed to stay proceedings for abuse of process and entrapment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the record, the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the statement under s. 24(2), the hearsay evidence was properly admitted, and the police conduct did not amount to entrapment or an abuse of process.

The appellant suffered soft tissue injuries in a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

At trial, the jury awarded damages but declined to award compensation for future loss of income.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge's unorthodox charge to the jury deprived her of a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the charge was unorthodox, it was fair as a whole and the jury's decision on future income loss was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt of court for allegedly refusing to allow the respondent access to their children.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt order due to several procedural defects, including the failure to rule on an adjournment request, denying the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, and a defective notice of motion.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the appellant.

The appellant appealed his conviction and four-year sentence for sexual assault and breach of probation.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to adequately address a gap in the complainant's memory shortly before the assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficiently addressed the live issues of credibility and reliability, noting that the complainant clearly expressed her lack of consent during the sexual acts regardless of any prior memory gap.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the four-year term was within the appropriate range given the appellant's prior record and the circumstances of the offence.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent patient and his family for a stroke suffered following a cervical rhizotomy.

The trial judge found the appellant failed to obtain informed consent and that a reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have consented if properly informed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on liability and upholding the damages awards for general damages and future economic loss.

The appellant, a lawyer, was convicted of fraud, forgery, and uttering forged documents after deceiving an elderly investor into providing a mortgage loan.

He appealed his conviction, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated, and appealed his 22-month custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the delay was not unreasonable.

However, the Court admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant had secured the outstanding restitution amount.

Based on this fresh evidence, the Court allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the sentence to 16 months' incarceration.

The accused was convicted of indecent exposure based primarily on the non-expert recognition evidence of a transit officer who identified him from a surveillance video still.

The trial judge admitted the evidence without a voir dire.

The summary conviction appeal judge found a voir dire should have been held but applied the curative proviso, concluding the evidence would inevitably have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that while the 'prior acquaintance/better position' test applies, it was not inevitable that the evidence would have been admitted had a voir dire revealed the officer's familiarity was based on a single brief encounter two years prior.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five counts, including sexual assault of a minor and attempting to procure a person to become a prostitute, and was sentenced to five years and two months in prison based on a joint submission.

On appeal, he argued that the agreed statement of facts did not support the convictions and that the sentence was beyond the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's guilty pleas were informed and unequivocal, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences.

The appellants sought to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the order sought to be appealed was interlocutory and therefore no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,000.