Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed a costs order of $22,263.24 plus HST made following the disposition of jointly tried issues under the Partition Act and Family Law Act.

The trial judge awarded costs to the respondent based on 80% success and an earlier offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the trial judge's discretionary costs award was supported by the record and not plainly wrong.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder for an execution-style shooting related to a drug debt.

On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding unsavoury witnesses (Vetrovec warning) and the defence of abandonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's continuum approach to the Vetrovec warnings, his instructions on confirmatory evidence, or his charge on abandonment.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision upholding his conviction for mischief to property.

The conviction arose from a dispute with his neighbour over a shared laneway, where the appellant placed debris to block the neighbour's use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the issues raised did not involve questions of law with jurisprudential significance beyond the case, and the merits of the appeal were not sufficiently strong to warrant granting leave.

The three young person appellants appealed their convictions for gang sexual assault and forcible confinement.

They argued the trial judge erred in his credibility findings and application of the W.(D.) analysis regarding their defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) analysis, made supportable credibility findings, and reasonably concluded the complainant did not consent and the appellants did not have an honest belief in her consent.

The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender and the resulting indeterminate sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge misapprehended evidence regarding his willingness to take Lupron to control his risk of reoffending, and improperly admitted expert reply psychiatric evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's factual conclusions were supported by the record and the expert evidence was admitted on consent.

The appellant, Hyundai Auto Canada Corp., appealed a summary judgment requiring it to pay $175,000 to the respondent, Canadian Soccer Association, for breach of a sponsorship agreement.

Hyundai had terminated the agreement without the required 90 days' notice after another sponsor, Tide, withdrew.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that Tide's continued involvement was not a material term of the contract and that Hyundai was required to provide notice of termination.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on charges of criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

On appeal, amicus curiae argued that the trial judge erred by failing to hold a fitness hearing, asserting that the appellant's delusional disorder (erotomania) rendered him unfit to stand trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had properly relied on psychiatric reports confirming the appellant's fitness and that the limited cognitive capacity test was met.

An application to admit fresh psychiatric evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant hospital appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting the respondent an absolute discharge after she was found not criminally responsible for wilful mischief endangering life.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Review Board misapprehended the expert psychiatric evidence regarding the respondent's risk of acting on delusional beliefs and failed to consider evidence from the respondent's sister and the hospital treatment team.

The disposition was set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellants were convicted of offences arising from a jewellery store robbery.

Police obtained a 'tower dump' warrant for cell phone records near the store without reasonable grounds, violating s. 8 of the Charter.

Using this unconstitutionally obtained information, police secured subscriber warrants and residential search warrants.

The trial judge excluded the tower dump records but admitted the subscriber and residential evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, reasoning that the subscriber records could have been lawfully obtained via a telephone records order under s. 492.2(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the admission of the evidence and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a serious home invasion, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the amount of pre-sentence custody was part of the joint submission and that the sentence, which was at the very low end of the range, appropriately reflected one-for-one credit alongside other mitigating factors.

The appellant appealed the imposition of an $8,000 fine, arguing it was excessive and that the trial judge failed to make sufficient inquiry into his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge erred in this regard, though it affirmed that a fine reflecting the seriousness of the offence was appropriate.

The appeal was allowed and the fine was reduced to $6,000, with one year to pay.

The appellant vendor appealed a decision granting the respondent purchaser the right to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium unit and the return of his deposits.

The vendor had failed to provide occupancy by the specified closing date and argued the agreement implicitly allowed for extensions until the unit was substantially completed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement did not grant the vendor a unilateral right to extend the closing date and that the purchaser had not waived his right to terminate.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for injuries sustained after slipping on an icy patch in a laneway.

The trial judge found the laneway was used as both a vehicular roadway and a pedestrian passageway, and applied the gross negligence standard applicable to sidewalks.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach or his finding of gross negligence, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship without access of his child to the Children's Aid Society.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial given the father's failure to address risks and lack of insight into his parenting deficiencies.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal, and the father appealed to the Court of Appeal, tendering fresh evidence of his progress as a parent with a new child.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, holding that the child's best interests required finality and a permanent adoptive home.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that upheld his conviction.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to his evidence compared to the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the appellant failed to meet the test for leave and that the argument had little merit.

The appellants, life insurance companies, appealed a trial judgment finding that transactions involving their participating accounts to finance a corporate acquisition breached the Insurance Companies Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the transactions breached the Act by failing to comply with generally accepted accounting principles, improperly allocating expenses, and constituting prohibited transfers.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the remedy, finding that the trial judge's order to return $390 million to the participating accounts via litigation trusts was overly broad and akin to an oppression remedy not available under the Act.

Instead, the Court ordered the transactions unwound as of the present, with adjustments for expense savings already received.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the test for granting leave had not been met and none of the grounds raised warranted granting leave.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding the actus reus of the offence had been made out.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's analysis fully supported the finding of dangerous driving.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting a partial award for storage and demurrage charges in an arbitrary amount and directing the balance to trial.

Both parties agreed the motion judge erred in this regard.

The appellant sought to have the entire matter sent to trial, while the respondent cross-appealed for summary judgment for the full amount claimed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the appellant failed to put its best foot forward on the summary judgment motion to dispute the quantum or the invoices once the respondent's entitlement to a lien was established.

The respondent was granted judgment for the full amount claimed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded him damages for constructive dismissal but dismissed his claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace verbal abuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer's conduct, while creating a poisoned work environment, did not rise to the level required for additional damages.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's costs award was also dismissed.