Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the trial judge.

The issues raised were essentially factual, and there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings.

The appellant law firm sought an interpleader order to pay trust funds into court.

The application judge ordered the payment of those funds, plus an additional amount that the law firm had already applied toward unpaid legal fees.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that an interpleader order was not available for the additional funds because the law firm claimed a beneficial interest in them and was not a disinterested stakeholder.

The appeal was allowed, and the order was varied to exclude the disputed funds.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay 80 percent of the defence costs incurred by the respondent's directors and officers in a class action for prospectus misrepresentation.

The insurer argued that a pollution exclusion clause in the directors' and officers' liability policy excluded coverage because the class action arose following a tailings dam collapse and the release of toxic waste.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the exclusion clause applied to pollution losses rather than all losses connected to a pollution-related claim, and that the allocation endorsement was properly applied since the claims involved both covered and uncovered losses.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision to deny him leave to continue with his motion to change child support.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's history of chronic delays, non-compliance with multiple court orders, and failure to make complete disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding liability and damages for property damage, including flower gardens, an excavated area, and a basement wall.

The respondents cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings of fact, liability conclusions, and damages assessment, and no error in principle in the costs award.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $25,000 payable to the respondents.

The appellant brought an action for constructive dismissal, alleging the employer unilaterally changed his working conditions and reduced his wages.

These events occurred after a union was certified but before a collective agreement was reached, triggering the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer successfully moved to strike the action on the basis that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Weber analysis to find that the essential character of the dispute was a breach of the statutory freeze, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the schooling of the parties' children.

The appellant conceded that home-schooling was no longer a live issue, and the only outstanding issue was the choice between public and private schooling for the upcoming academic year, which would be raised at a scheduled case conference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting with reluctance that they heard the appeal despite the appellant's admission of being in breach of the motion judge's order requiring the children to be sent to Eastview Collegiate in Barrie.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that it did not have the right under a commercial lease to relocate the respondent tenant outside the existing shopping centre development.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the lease envisaged changes short of full demolition and creation of an entirely new development, and therefore the relocation right did not extend to compulsory relocation outside the existing complex.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order regarding an insurer's duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that based on the plaintiff's pleadings, the possibility that the appellant's statements were made carelessly rather than intentionally could not be ruled out.

Applying the Supreme Court's principle that the mere possibility of a claim falling within the policy triggers the duty to defend, the court set aside the motion judge's order and awarded costs to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a judgment on the basis that the motion judge erred in refusing to allow viva voce evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the exercise of discretion given the history of delays by the appellant, indulgences granted, and prior notice given by a Master.

The court concluded there was no procedural unfairness or denial of natural justice.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment on a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that while the default was explained and there was no delay, the appellants failed to present a valid defence on the merits.

The balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, as no payments had been made.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking paragraphs in its statement of claim that alleged three statements (website, faxed, and oral) were defamatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the impugned remarks, taken in context, were not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence.

The Minister of Finance assessed IBM Canada for payroll tax under the Employer Health Tax Act on moneys paid to expatriate employees working abroad for foreign affiliates.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while the expatriates remained employees of IBM Canada, the payments did not constitute 'remuneration paid' because the foreign affiliates reimbursed IBM Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, finding that the payments were made in the context of an ongoing employer/employee relationship and thus constituted 'remuneration paid' under the Act, regardless of the ultimate economic burden.

IBM Canada's cross-appeal challenging the existence of the employer/employee relationship was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for aggravated assault and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to ensure he was represented by counsel and by inadequately assisting him as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant, an experienced criminal litigant, had clearly chosen to represent himself and that the trial judge had provided adequate and fair assistance throughout the trial.

The court also upheld the 4.5-year sentence as fit given the violent nature of the offence and the appellant's substantial criminal record.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of three accused charged with driving while disqualified.

The accused had signed standard pre-printed prohibition orders that failed to set out the full penal consequences of driving while disqualified, as required by s. 260(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the presumption of regularity should apply to cure the defective forms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the presumption of regularity did not apply because the written forms were explicitly deficient and there was no reason to presume the court clerk went beyond the written terms when explaining the orders.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and assault causing bodily harm following a violent attack in a convenience store parking lot.

The sole issue at trial was eyewitness identification.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal held the verdict was not unreasonable, but allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to properly instruct himself and analyze the inherent frailties of the eyewitness identification evidence.

The appellant challenged a conviction for a historic sexual assault and a four-year penitentiary sentence arising from a judge-alone trial that turned entirely on credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that, despite a misstatement of the third branch of the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge’s reasons as a whole demonstrated proper application of the burden and standard of proof, and the conviction appeal was dismissed.

However, the court found sentencing error where the trial judge treated the accused’s fabricated trial evidence as an aggravating factor.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentence was reduced to three years’ imprisonment.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the disposition of the appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the disposition of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement.

The self-represented appellant appealed the dismissal of his action.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had repeatedly failed to comply with the Rules, ignored court orders, and misused court processes.

Finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.