Robert A. Blair

The appellant tenant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent landlord damages for the cost of restoring commercial premises at the end of a tenancy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a 1999 consolidation lease did not eliminate the tenant's repair obligations from earlier leases.

The court also upheld the assessment of damages for floor, electrical, and HVAC repairs as supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that an administration fee for loss of rent was not supported by the wording of the lease.

The plaintiff sued the appellant in negligence following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant was driving the plaintiff's car with permission and was an insured under the plaintiff's automobile insurance policy.

The insurer settled the plaintiff's claims without the appellant's consent and obtained summary judgment against the appellant for reimbursement under s. 258 of the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that absent an agreement to the contrary, s. 258(1) requires a judgment against the insured before an insurer can access available insurance moneys or seek reimbursement.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The applicant witnessed an alleged unprovoked assault by a police officer and filed a public complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services refused to process the complaint, finding the applicant was not 'directly affected' by the conduct.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision, but the Court of Appeal allowed the Commission's appeal, holding that 'directly affected' requires a personal and individual interest, not merely a general interest, and thus a mere witness lacks standing to bring a public complaint.

The Attorney General of Canada obtained an evidence-gathering order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow a French expert to examine a collection of Rodin plasters held at an art centre.

The collectors appealed, arguing the order amounted to an unauthorized search and seizure.

The application judge made a sending order but attached conditions requiring the Crown to pay storage costs, indemnify the collectors for damage, and pay costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the collectors' appeal, finding jurisdiction for the evidence-gathering order.

However, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal, striking out the compensation and costs conditions as inconsistent with the general rule that costs are not awarded in criminal matters absent exceptional circumstances.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its action and allowing the respondents' counterclaim for rescission of an agreement for the removal of sand and gravel from the respondents' property.

The trial judge rescinded the agreement on the basis of unconscionability, noting the unequal bargaining power, lack of independent legal advice, and the fact that the unilingual francophone respondents were presented with an English agreement containing overreaching terms.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, his rejection of the laches defence, or his award of $4,000 for unjust enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant transported contaminated soil to the respondent's transfer station.

The motion judge concluded that these stand-alone transportation services were not lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error and relying on established case law.

The appellant driver was sued for negligence following a motor vehicle accident while driving the plaintiff's car.

The plaintiff's insurer, added as a third party, settled the plaintiff's claims without the appellant's consent and obtained a consent judgment against itself, but not against the appellant.

The insurer then successfully moved for summary judgment against the appellant for reimbursement of the settlement monies under section 258 of the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, holding that absent an agreement between the insurer and the insured, the insurer cannot seek reimbursement under section 258(1) without first recovering a judgment against the insured.

The parties reached a settlement and agreed to vary the lower court order on consent in the Superior Court.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal with no costs.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when struck by a motor vehicle driven by an impaired driver who had been drinking at a university pub.

The jury found the driver 70% liable and the pub 30% liable, awarding general, aggravated, and punitive damages, but dismissing the family members' claims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the liability apportionment and general damages, but struck the separate aggravated damages award.

The Court affirmed that punitive damages are available in negligence actions for impaired driving but reduced the quantum from $100,000 to $20,000.

The Court also allowed the family members' appeal, awarding them damages under the Family Law Act.

The accused, charged with defrauding her employer, brought a motion for the production of financial records from third parties.

The motion was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The trial judge ordered the Crown to pay half of the substantial costs incurred by the third parties in defending the motion, as the accused was judgment proof.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there is no statutory or inherent jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown in the trial of an indictable offence absent Crown misconduct or a serious interference with the administration of justice.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of defence to allege an improvident sale and de facto foreclosure by the respondent credit union.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on res judicata and abuse of process grounds.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal but on different grounds, finding that the claims could not provide a defence or set-off to the respondent's action under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and that any separate counterclaim belonged to the trustee in bankruptcy, not the appellants.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $393,431.99 in damages arising from a water slide accident that caused the respondent to suffer a head injury and chronic migraines.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's calculation of future loss of income and future medication costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the future loss of income award, finding no palpable and overriding error, but reduced the future care costs by $10,000 to account for the expected decreased cost of medication due to generic competition.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against several defendants, including his former partner, her lawyer, and a Quebec civil registry official, as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The action arose following a long history of paternity disputes and the appellant's conviction for criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, noting that the claims against the registry official and the lawyer lacked foundation, and the action against the former partner was properly deemed an abuse of process.

The appellant, a teacher, was convicted of sexually touching a teenage student.

He appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to cross-examine the complainant on notes taken by a police officer, which he claimed constituted a prior inconsistent statement.

He also argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police notes did not constitute a formal statement, the failure to cross-examine did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge's reasons were adequate.

The appellants, represented by pro bono counsel, were successful on appeal and sought costs.

The respondents opposed, arguing that pro bono counsel should not receive costs.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no prohibition on awarding costs in favour of parties represented by pro bono counsel in private actions.

The Court recognized 'facilitating access to justice' as a fifth purpose of costs awards.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the appellants.

The appellant sued the respondents for breach of contract under Rule 76.

The appellant failed to serve his affidavit of documents by the deadline due to document contamination and moved to adjourn the trial.

The respondents moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding the appellant failed to raise the issue earlier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors as the appellant had notified the parties of the contamination well in advance.

The remedy of striking the claim was disproportionate, and the appellant was granted 6 months to serve the affidavit.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of claim against the federal government for discrimination, defamation, malice, and Charter breaches.

The motion judge found the action was an abuse of process, as it attempted to re-litigate complaints about a British Columbia legal proceeding and lacked any factual basis connecting the complaints to the federal government.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the appellants could not make an indirect attack on the B.C. proceedings by suing the federal government in Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment by choosing between conflicting expert opinions on the application of the Quebec Automobile Insurance Act to the facts of the case.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that foreign law is a question of fact and the motion judge was not entitled to look beyond the diametrically opposed expert opinions to resolve the issue on a summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment was set aside.

The parties agreed that critical and further evidence respecting the best interests of the child needed to be presented, which was not presented before the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent and ordered a new trial on the issue of mobility.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they failed to address his testimony concerning fans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence about the fans did not undermine the informant's evidence regarding the detection of marihuana odour.