Robert A. Blair

The appellant, a former Revenue Canada auditor, was convicted of 249 counts of fraudulently obtaining over $1.5 million in GST refunds.

He appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence to support an alibi defence and arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the Crown's duty to preserve evidence.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentence, seeking a four-year term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria and the lack of a jury instruction was a tactical decision by the defence that would not have altered the verdict.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's role was entitled to deference.

The appellant sought to quash a municipal by-law renaming a public square, arguing that the city council held closed meetings in violation of the Municipal Act.

The Court of Appeal found that while the council failed to pass a sufficient resolution before going into closed session and conducted an unauthorized vote, these were procedural irregularities.

Because the final decision to pass the by-law was made after lengthy debate at an open public meeting, the by-law was not tainted by illegality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle went off the road, killing his passenger.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting the Crown accident reconstructionist's opinion on speed and impairment, and in failing to properly instruct the jury regarding 'bolus drinking'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the expert was properly qualified to give the impugned opinions and the jury was entitled to infer from the evidence and common sense that the appellant had not engaged in bolus drinking.

The respondent was charged with second degree murder after strangling his wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of provocation, and the jury acquitted him of murder, convicting him of manslaughter.

The Crown appealed the acquittal, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the defence of provocation had an air of reality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding there was some evidence of wrongful acts and insults by the victim from which a properly instructed jury could reasonably find both the objective and subjective components of provocation were met.

The court-appointed receiver of a corporation recommended that the company enter a plea agreement and plead guilty to a charge of mail fraud in the United States.

The motion judge approved the recommendation as being within the bounds of reasonableness.

The appellants appealed, arguing the receiver failed to properly assess the risk of conviction and the benefits of the plea agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the receiver's assessment of the risk of conviction, cost savings, and reduced exposure to civil liability and restitution was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the offence was not known to law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that previous binding decisions had already rejected this argument and confirmed the offence remained in full force and effect.

The court also found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the Crown's exercise of discretion and the trial judge's refusal to hear a late Charter argument.

The appellants appealed their convictions for production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the prohibitions were invalid and inoperative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, noting that previous jurisprudence, including R. v. Turmel and Hitzig v. Canada, had already rejected the argument that section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was invalid.

Any constitutional invalidity regarding medical access had been remedied by the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two robberies and two counts of using an imitation firearm.

The Court of Appeal found the convictions related to the 7-11 store robbery unreasonable, as the Crown's case relied on two highly unreliable witnesses who were crack cocaine addicts with spotty memories, and the store clerk's description did not match the appellant.

Those convictions were quashed.

However, the Court upheld the convictions for the Country Blenz Donut Shop robbery, finding that despite the unsavoury nature of the Crown's witness, the trial judge properly applied Vetrovec considerations and the evidence supported the conviction.

In a CCAA proceeding, the appellant sought to enforce a Memorandum of Agreement to purchase the debtor's assets after missing a deadline.

The motion judge found the agreement had expired.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the basis that leave was required under s. 13 of the CCAA.

The Court of Appeal held that leave was required because the order was made under the CCAA.

The Court dismissed the appellant's cross-motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's findings on expiration and estoppel, and concluding the proposed appeal lacked significance to the practice.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their claim for fee simple title to a disputed property based on adverse possession.

The appellants had occupied the land and built a cottage under a 40-year written agreement with the respondent's father, paying an annual fee and property taxes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellants' occupation was by permission, not adverse, open, and notorious possession with the intent to exclude the owner.

The appeal was dismissed.

The mother appealed an order dismissing her appeal from a summary judgment that granted Crown wardship without access.

The child had been placed with an adoptive family after the mother struggled with addiction and instability.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's decision.

Although the mother submitted fresh evidence showing she had rehabilitated herself, the court held it was not in the child's best interests to be removed from her adoptive family after significant time had passed.

The appellants requested to re-open the appeal for further argument on the correct Initial Fair Market Value date for a property.

The Court of Appeal denied the request, noting that the interpretation of the agreement regarding the valuation date was not directly addressed at trial or on appeal, but arose indirectly regarding whether an enforceable agreement existed.

The Court held that the issue of the valuation date was not central to the appeal and that the record amply supported the trial judge's finding of a valid oral agreement.

The interpretation of the agreement was left to be resolved by an arbitrator.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their personal injury claim.

The trial judge had found the plaintiff's evidence regarding how the accident occurred to be confusing and inconsistent due to her age and illness, and drew an adverse inference from the failure to call a witness to the accident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no prima facie case of negligence, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample.

He was stopped for a burnt-out headlight, smelled of alcohol, and provided thirteen unsuitable breath samples into a screening device by giving short, quick puffs despite instructions.

The trial judge found he intentionally refused to provide a proper sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and properly considered the evidence.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The trial judge found that the appellant unlawfully detained the complainant and lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him for causing a disturbance, as the complainant's loud and rude protestations were instigated by the appellant's improper actions.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' conclusions that there was no criminal disturbance and no reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court, which had upheld his conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court erred in concluding that the trial judge acted reasonably in denying an adjournment to the unrepresented appellant.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's reasons without basis and failed to consider the importance of counsel given the Charter issues and the appellant's intention to testify.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred by treating his task as merely choosing between the evidence of the appellant and the police officer.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant municipality purchased an abandoned railway line and developed it into a trailway.

When adjoining landowners demanded fencing under the Line Fences Act, the municipality passed a by-law designating the trailway as a public highway to exempt itself from the fencing obligation.

The application judge quashed the by-law, finding it was passed in bad faith to avoid the cost of fencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality's appeal, holding that while courts owe deference to municipal decisions, good faith remains a central foundation for the validity of a by-law, and the record supported the finding of bad faith.

Following the release of the appeal decision, counsel requested clarification regarding the costs of the trial.

The Court of Appeal clarified its previous ruling, ordering that the respondent pay the costs of the action at trial, to be fixed by the trial judge, if demanded.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the imputation of income and a retroactive child support award.

The Court of Appeal found that the imputation of income was well-grounded in the evidence.

Regarding retroactivity, the court applied the principles from DBS v. SRG, noting the payor's deliberate non-disclosure of his true financial situation.

The court held that the 1997 notice to renegotiate child support constituted effective notice, which was not erased by a subsequent agreement based on the appellant's misinformation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 plus disbursements.

The appellant sought a publication ban on the name of its employee, who had been acquitted of historical sexual abuse charges, in relation to evidence given at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

The Commissioner refused the ban, finding the public interest in openness outweighed the employee's privacy interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review, applying a reasonableness standard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court correctly identified reasonableness as the standard of review and that the Commissioner reasonably applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test in balancing the protection of innocence against the public interest in an open inquiry.