Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that her long-term disability benefits under an insurance policy were to be reduced by payments she received from CPP and HOOPP disability plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the policy language clear.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed, with net costs of $7,500 awarded to the respondents.

The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of historical physical and sexual abuse against his step-daughter.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge failed to properly assess the reliability of the complainant's testimony and improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding the absence of corroborating police and school records.

The Court of Appeal (majority) allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by focusing on the complainant's sincerity rather than the reliability of her memories of distant events, and by failing to consider whether the absence of mandatory child abuse reports raised a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly concluded the appellant became the aggressor when he exited his vehicle, vitiating his self-defence claim and changing his purpose for possessing the knife to a dangerous one.

The appellant, a native Serbian speaker diagnosed with schizophrenia, was found incapable of consenting to treatment.

At his Consent and Capacity Board hearing, he requested an adjournment to allow his Serbian-speaking lawyer to attend.

The Board granted a brief adjournment and directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to appoint counsel.

The appointed counsel did not speak Serbian and the appellant explicitly rejected her services.

However, appointed counsel failed to inform the Board of this rejection, and the hearing proceeded with the Board mistakenly believing the appellant was represented.

The Board confirmed the incapacity finding, and the Superior Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding for the first time that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is available on appeal from a Board capacity decision.

The Court found that appointed counsel's failure to disclose her lack of authority to act caused a miscarriage of justice by depriving the appellant of adjudicative fairness.

A new hearing was ordered.

The appellants appealed a decision confirming that the composition of the County Council should be reduced from 20 to 16 members due to a decline in the number of electors in four townships.

The Court of Appeal held that the municipal by-law governing representation implicitly required a reduction in representatives when a township's population fell below the specified threshold.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's decision to nullify the Striking by-law and remove the additional representatives mid-term, as they had no legal entitlement to hold office.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sued the respondents for defamation and abuse of public office after the Competition Bureau announced bid-rigging charges against them in a press release and to the media.

The motion judge struck the defamation claim under Rule 21.01(1), finding the statements were a fair characterization of the charges and incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that whether the statements were a fair characterization was a factual issue for trial, but struck the portion of the claim relating to Ontario media publications because the appellants failed to provide the required notice under section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs pending the disposition of the appellant's appeal from an order dismissing her action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious given the extensive history of delay and failure to comply with court orders.

Despite the appellant's claim of impecuniosity, the Court ordered her to post $15,000 as security for costs to balance the respondent's right to protection against the appellant's access to justice.

The appellant's private prosecution was stayed by the Attorney General prior to a pre-enquete hearing.

The appellant's application for mandamus was dismissed based on binding precedent.

Seeking to challenge that precedent, the appellant requested a five-judge panel, which was denied by the Associate Chief Justice.

A motion to review that denial was dismissed by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant then moved to review and set aside the single judge's order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that there is no statutory authority or rule permitting an appeal or review of a decision by the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice regarding the assignment of judicial duties, including the refusal to strike a five-judge panel.

The self-represented appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasons regarding guilt.

The court also noted that the sentence had already been served and was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board made serious errors of law, as there was no positive evidence that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been living in the community for almost five years, adhered to his medication, and had the support of his treatment team for an absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's inference that the appellant knew there was a gun in the car he was driving was logically consistent and reasonably supported by the totality of the evidence, including the time of day, the presence of latex gloves, and the fact that the gun was not hidden.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine.

He argued that the jury verdicts were inconsistent, the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on aiding and abetting, and the trial judge erred in finding he was not entrapped.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions or the entrapment ruling.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 14-month sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent former employee damages for lost long-term disability (LTD) benefits and punitive damages following a wrongful dismissal.

The respondent had been diagnosed with cancer after finding alternate employment and claimed he would have been entitled to LTD benefits under the appellant's plan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the LTD benefits award, finding sufficient medical and vocational evidence that the respondent was totally disabled and incapable of working, thus negating any failure to mitigate.

However, the Court set aside the $15,000 punitive damages award because it had not been pleaded or sought at trial.

The appellant, plaintiff in a personal injury action where liability was admitted, sought a six-month adjournment of the trial because she lacked up-to-date medical reports.

The motion judge denied the request, citing delays and fading memories, which led to the action being dismissed when the appellant called no evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge failed to consider that liability was admitted and that the respondents would suffer no non-compensable prejudice from a short adjournment.

The action was reinstated and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The motion judge had found that the proposed amendments added new causes of action and were statute-barred, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the amendments did not add new material facts but simply claimed additional or alternative forms of relief based on the facts already pleaded.

As there was no evidence of non-compensable prejudice, the amendments were permitted.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment, arguing the respondent failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an oral offer of re-employment and missing a job interview.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's request for a written offer and legal advice was reasonable, and his overall mitigation efforts were diligent.

The court also declined to interfere with the 22-month notice period and the trial costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them totally liable for a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The trial judge had purported to determine liability by taking the appellants' evidence at its highest, without resolving conflicting testimony regarding the respondent's use of turn signals and vehicle positioning.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to make necessary factual findings and misapplied the law regarding the onus on a following driver and contributory negligence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action to invalidate a home renovations contract and associated loan agreement.

She alleged her signatures on the contract were forged.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence of forgery to counter the respondent's contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing his claims, including fraud, against an employment agency.

The trial judge found there was no promise to find the appellant a job within a specified time frame or salary range, and no evidentiary basis for the alleged causes of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual and credibility-based findings were supported by the record.

The appellant sold a waterjet machine to a debtor and perfected its purchase money security interest by registering under the PPSA.

Unbeknownst to the appellant, the debtor immediately transferred the machine to a related company.

The related company later obtained financing from the respondent, who registered a security interest against the related company's assets.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's security interest remained perfected and took priority under s. 48(2) of the PPSA, as the appellant registered a financing change statement within 30 days of learning of the unauthorized transfer.

The appellant's discharge of a separate, unrelated registration against the related company did not unperfect its original security interest.