Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a minimum secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by admitting reports referencing stayed charges, that the six-month delay in issuing reasons was unreasonable, and that the refusal to grant a conditional discharge was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reliance on risk assessment tools appropriate, declining to grant a remedy for the delayed reasons despite urging promptness, and upholding the detention order as necessary for public protection given the appellant's lack of insight and history of non-compliance.

The appellant surgeon mistakenly cut the respondent's common bile duct during laparoscopic gallbladder surgery.

At trial, the judge found that the surgeon used proper techniques but breached the standard of care by failing to adopt reasonable precautions based on 'common sense'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in relying on common sense to find standard medical practices inadequate in a complex medical negligence case where expert evidence conflicted.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a child but acquitted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

The trial judge rejected the complainant's evidence but convicted the appellant based on portions of his statement to the police.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable because the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's statement in its entirety, ignoring exculpatory portions.

The Court also found the conviction inconsistent with the acquittal on the sexual interference charge and held that the trial judge impermissibly drew an adverse inference from the appellant's silence during the police interview.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal for assaulting a police officer.

He argued that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in concluding that fresh evidence regarding a wrist injury would not have affected the verdict.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the issues raised were not questions of law of general application and that the appellant failed to demonstrate a clear error of law.

The appellants, former employees of a bankrupt company, sought severance and termination pay from related companies under s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the companies were related, the relationship did not have the intent or effect of defeating the purpose of the Act, as the related companies had actually propped up the bankrupt company.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is reasonableness and the Board's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The plaintiff brought a class action against Health Canada for negligent regulation of a jaw implant device, limiting her claim to damages attributable to Health Canada's proportionate degree of fault.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the dental surgeon and hospital for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the third-party claim, confirming that because the plaintiff limited her claim to the defendant's several liability, the defendant had no right to contribution.

The Court also clarified that fault can be apportioned against non-parties under the Negligence Act.

The respondent co-ownership corporation sought to enforce an agreement against the appellant, claiming the appellant's commencement of meritless criminal proceedings against the building superintendent constituted a default.

The application judge granted the relief, deferring to the Board's determination of default.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the material before the application judge contained no reference to the Board's determination or the procedures relevant to its reasonableness.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $6,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that a lease agreement for a municipal solid waste demonstration plant expired on January 28, 2003, and ordering the third party to indemnify the respondent municipality.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the automatic three-year extension was triggered when the facility first accepted waste, not when it was fully completed.

The Court also upheld the finding that the third party was bound by an indemnity undertaking contained in its proposal, which was incorporated into the agreement between its wholly-owned subsidiary and the municipality.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the parties cohabited continuously for more than three years and were "spouses" under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her factual findings and in her use of evidence from the respondent's psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct test and her findings were adequately supported by the evidence, including her conclusion that the respondent's infidelities did not negate the spousal relationship.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to disagree with the motion judge's analyses or conclusions, holding that it was an appropriate case for summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant was convicted of possession of an unlicensed firearm and careless storage after a sawed-off shotgun was found under his bed.

At trial, he testified that an acquaintance had stayed at his condominium and left the gun.

The trial judge rejected this explanation because the appellant had not disclosed it to the police earlier, treating it like an alibi defence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by using the appellant's pre-trial silence to reject his credibility, violating his section 7 Charter right to silence.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellants sought costs for their unsuccessful appeal against the dismissal of a summary judgment motion, arguing the appeal was necessary to establish that the motion judge's observations were obiter.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the law was already well-established, and awarded costs to the respondents.

The respondents claimed $120,000, but the court fixed costs at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, finding the claimed amount excessive for a one-day appeal.

The appellant, a former vice-chair and major shareholder of the respondent, entered into a retirement agreement and a settlement agreement that fixed the buyout price of his shares at US$5.21.

He later sued for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the respondent failed to disclose a recapitalization plan that ultimately valued the shares at US$10.06.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged misrepresentations were immaterial because the appellant's share price was contractually crystallized, he suffered no damages, and the action was barred by a full and final release.

The respondent, whose criminal charges for sexual offences were withdrawn upon entering a peace bond, applied for jobs requiring a Vulnerable Persons Search.

He signed consent forms authorizing the Toronto Police Service to conduct the search.

The Peel Police Service disclosed the withdrawn charges to the Toronto Police Service.

The respondent obtained an injunction prohibiting the Peel Police Service from disclosing the withdrawn charges.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the disclosure was authorized by the respondent's consent under s. 32(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court also dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding no violation of his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 8.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for negligent misrepresentation against a financial institution and its vice-president.

The appellants alleged the vice-president failed to warn them about a third party's criminal conviction for fraud during a meeting.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the vice-president was unaware of the conviction, did not provide financial advice, and made remarks that amounted to mere puffery upon which reliance was unreasonable.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder following a shooting at a Toronto nightclub.

On appeal, they argued that the verdicts were unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding eye-witness identification, post-offence conduct, and planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal found that the eye-witness testimony, combined with confirmatory physical evidence such as gunshot residue and hidden bullets, was sufficient to support the convictions.

The court also held that the trial judge's jury instructions were fair, balanced, and legally correct.

The appeals were dismissed.

Following the appellant's substantial success on appeal and at trial in a family law matter, the Court of Appeal fixed costs for both proceedings.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the trial and failing to make or accept reasonable offers to settle.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the appellant $275,000 for the trial and $25,000 for the appeal, allowing the award to be offset against the appellant's spousal support arrears.

Following the dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $26,457.59.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, responsible for the appellants' costs, argued for a reduction to $12,000 due to novelty, public interest, and access to justice concerns.

The Court of Appeal fixed the respondent's costs at $18,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, reflecting the nature of the appeal and the dismissal of the cross-appeal.

The respondent was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and claimed non-earner benefits from his insurer.

The trial judge awarded the benefits, finding the respondent suffered a partial inability to carry on a normal life that developed into chronic pain.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test.

Under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, an insured must demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident, which requires showing an impairment that continuously prevents them from engaging in substantially all pre-accident activities.

The respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities to satisfy this threshold.