Robert A. Blair

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and counselling to commit murder.

The trial judge had excluded intercepted private communications under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police affiant and Crown agent acted improperly in obtaining the wiretap authorization.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction by excising correct information from the affidavit and erred in finding that the remaining information was insufficient.

The Court also found that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors regarding the conduct of the police affiant and the legal duties of the Crown agent.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed an order closing an access road across the respondents' commercial lodge property, which the appellants had used to access their cottage since 1982 without a legal right.

The applications judge found the road was an 'access road' under the Road Access Act, the appellants had no legal right to use it, and exercised his residual discretion to grant a closing order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the conditions for granting a closing order under s. 3(1) of the Act are disjunctive, not conjunctive, and that the applications judge properly balanced the parties' competing interests and the public interest.

The appellants, representing unionized and non-unionized former employees of Nortel, appealed a decision dismissing their motions for directions to compel Nortel to pay severance, termination, and retirement benefits during its CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued that the payments were protected under s. 11.3(a) of the CCAA as compensation for ongoing services, and that the CCAA stay could not override provincial Employment Standards Act obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the payments were for past services and that the doctrine of federal paramountcy allowed the CCAA stay to suspend the immediate payment obligations under the provincial legislation to facilitate the restructuring.

The appellants' home was damaged by fire.

Their insurer denied their claim, alleging a material change in risk and false statements.

The insurer paid the mortgagee under the Standard Mortgage Clause and then sued the appellants for subrogation, obtaining summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that an insurer's right to subrogation under the Standard Mortgage Clause requires two preconditions: payment to the mortgagee, and establishing that it has no liability to the insured mortgagor.

Because the insurer's liability to the insured was a genuine issue for trial, the summary judgment was set aside and the actions were consolidated.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's decision.

The Court held that the applicable statute prevailed over the Rules of Court regarding notice requirements, meaning notice was not required.

Consequently, there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, and the judges below had jurisdiction to make their orders.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the proper time to introduce the evidence was before the motion judge.

The appellant had failed to file responding materials or attend the peremptory hearing, leaving the motion judge with uncontroverted evidence.

The appellant acknowledged his default and that the motion judge made no error.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given in a related file endorsement, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the parties were to share a lottery prize equally based on their established practice and relationship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact regarding a central phone call and the parties' confirmatory conduct were entirely open to him and reasonable.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $8,000 to the respondent.

The appellant abandoned its appeal on consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appeal abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $3,500.

The appellants appealed a judgment, arguing issues with service and seeking to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion for fresh evidence, finding there was an ample basis for the motion judge to conclude the appellants were properly served and noting they had not requested an adjournment.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after a collision.

He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and a five-year driving prohibition.

He appealed the sentence, arguing for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that a conditional sentence would not adequately address denunciation and general deterrence.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing their application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a 2007 judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's finding that the moving parties failed to explain their two-year delay or their failure to appear before the original judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that acquitted the respondent of driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The appeal judge had found insufficient evidence that the respondent's breath sample was received 'directly' into the approved instrument as required by s. 258(1)(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that the provision does require the sample to be received directly into the instrument, but found there was ample circumstantial evidence from the breath technician to support the trial judge's conclusion that this requirement was met.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant bank issued letters of credit to secure payment for shrimp supplied by the respondent to the bank's customer.

The letters of credit required delivery receipts as a precondition to payment.

The bank's customer failed to provide the receipts, and the bank used the proceeds from the sale of the shrimp to pay down the customer's line of credit instead of paying the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the bank was disentitled from relying on the defence of strict documentary compliance because it colluded with its customer to defeat the purpose of the letters of credit and breached its implied duty of good faith.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 60 days intermittent after pleading guilty to production and trafficking of marijuana.

He argued the trial judge failed to sufficiently consider his medical condition when declining a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge clearly based the lenient intermittent sentence on the appellant's medical condition and implicitly factored in pre-trial custody.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had initially issued a brief decision upholding a union grievance, and later issued supplementary reasons at the union's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act to issue supplementary reasons without reconsidering the decision itself.

The Court found that the doctrine of functus officio applied, and the delivery of supplementary reasons raised a reasonable apprehension of result-driven, after-the-fact reasoning.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and drug offences.

On the dangerous driving conviction, the Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding a police officer's misconduct record but found it would not have affected the trial judge's credibility assessment.

On the drug convictions, the court declined to enter acquittals, finding there was some evidence of continuity, and upheld the summary conviction appeal court's order for a new trial.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the franchisor and the respondent bank had a sufficiently close connection to make the bank responsible for the franchisor's faults.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that no such genuine issue existed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for breach of recognizance.

The parties agreed that the charges giving rise to the recognizance had been withdrawn prior to the alleged breach.

As a result, the appellant was not bound by a recognizance when he consumed alcohol, and the appeal was allowed.