Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed against his sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal against sentence as abandoned.

Following the disposition of the merits of the appeal on September 25, 2006, the Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement regarding the costs of the application in the court below.

The court set aside the costs order below and awarded the appellants costs of the application fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant was taken to the hospital by police under a Form 2 of the Mental Health Act and detained for a psychiatric assessment by the attending physician under a Form 1.

She was assessed and released within four and one-half hours.

The appellant sued the physician and hospital for false imprisonment and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the action, finding that the detention complied with the Mental Health Act and that the provision of written notice of the right to counsel satisfied the appellant's Charter rights in this context.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that their conduct in registering a condominium declaration with a bifurcated common expense formula was oppressive.

The formula exempted undeveloped parcels from contributing to the maintenance of a ring road.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the declaration did not conflict with the Condominium Act, as the Act requires owners to contribute in the proportions specified in the declaration.

Furthermore, the developer's conduct was not oppressive because the formula was fully disclosed to purchasers before they bought their units, and it served a legitimate business purpose related to the staged nature of the development.

The appellants sought costs of the appeal and trial on a partial indemnity basis following their success.

The respondent argued for no costs, asserting the class proceeding raised a novel point of law and involved a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the litigation was a commercial dispute between sophisticated actors involving established principles.

The court awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $100,000 plus GST to both the individual and corporate appellants, along with disbursements, and ordered trial costs to be assessed on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, a 20-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after towing a friend on roller blades alongside her car, resulting in his death.

She was initially sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by ruling out a conditional sentence ab initio due to aggravating factors and by failing to prioritize rehabilitation for a youthful first offender.

The appeal was allowed, and an 18-month conditional sentence with 240 hours of community service was substituted.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment against his former common-law partner and sentenced to thirty days in custody plus three years of probation.

One of the probation conditions required him to leave the province of Ontario within two weeks of his release.

The appellant appealed both the conviction and the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, holding that banishment from an entire province is an extreme measure that cannot be justified as a reasonable condition under section 732.1(3)(h) of the Criminal Code.

The court struck down the banishment condition and substituted it with prohibitions on communicating with the victim, coming within 500 metres of her, and living in her community.

The appellant appealed a decision appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellant was under a disability and unable to understand information relevant to making decisions in the litigation.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, specifically a memorandum containing foundational information for the final opinion of an expert retained by the respondents.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal ordered the production of the memorandum under Rule 31.06(3).

The respondents moved to set aside this order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that Rule 31.06(3) applies only to the discovery stage of litigation and does not entitle a party to obtain disclosure after trial, especially when the party knew of the expert's final opinion prior to trial but failed to seek discovery of the foundational information at that time.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her civil action against the Crown and the Attorney General of Ontario.

The Court of Appeal held that her claim for malicious prosecution was statute-barred under section 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, as it was commenced more than six months after the cause of action arose.

The court found no air of reality to her allegations of malice or her Charter claims, noting she failed to plead material facts.

The court also held that the civil action was an improper collateral attack on a final criminal court decision.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellants, employees at the Joyceville prison, brought an action against the Attorney General of Canada after an employee address listing circulated among the inmate population.

The motions judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of s. 7 of the Charter on a Rule 21 motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed.

The court held that whether a fiduciary relationship existed and whether the release of private information engaged s. 7 of the Charter were questions best left for trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment upholding the validity of his deceased brother's will, which left the estate to the respondent, the testator's common law partner.

The appellant challenged the due execution of the will, the admissibility of hearsay evidence from a police officer regarding the testator's statements, an award of $10,000 in damages for trespass and conversion, and the denial of his costs out of the estate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of proper execution, that the hearsay evidence met the necessity criterion, and no basis to interfere with the damages or costs awards.

The appellants were charged with trafficking marijuana.

The information failed to specify the quantity of drugs, which affected whether the provincial court had absolute jurisdiction or if the appellants had an election.

The trial judge initially proceeded with a trial but later ruled he had exceeded his jurisdiction and converted the proceeding into a preliminary inquiry under s. 555(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants applied for certiorari to quash the order, arguing the proceedings were a nullity.

The Superior Court dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to convert the trial into a preliminary inquiry and that the defective information did not render the proceedings void ab initio.

The appellant pig farm applied to expand its operations but was denied minor variances from a municipal zoning by-law that enforced minimum distance separation (MDS II) guidelines.

The appellant applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which held it had jurisdiction and exempted the appellant from the doubling factor of the MDS II guidelines.

The Divisional Court overturned this, finding the Board lacked jurisdiction over zoning by-laws.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Board does have jurisdiction to consider zoning by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

However, applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it directly contradicted the mandatory provincial MDS II guidelines, violating section 9 of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action for damages and breach of confidence against the respondent.

The appellant had provided the respondent with confidential discount information belonging to a third-party medical network during a business pitch.

The respondent subsequently contracted directly with the third party, excluding the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant was not the entity entitled to the confidence and that the respondent had not misused the information, as it was used exactly for its intended purpose of evaluating the third party's services.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting possession of their property to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding corroborating evidence and equitable estoppel, and upheld the motion judge's reasons.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that a co-accused's prior statement could not be used for its truth against the appellant unless adopted at trial.

The Crown conceded this misdirection.

As the court could not conclude the result would necessarily have been the same without the error, the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct an error in paragraph 11 of its reasons for judgment released on November 17, 2005.

The court amended the reasons to replace the reference to 'Subordinated Debenture Holders' with 'Senior Debt Holders' in the first two sentences of the paragraph.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, which arose from an incident involving a bondage fantasy.

The defence argued the complainant had consented while in an alcohol-induced blackout.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Crown's closing address was inflammatory and misstated evidence, and that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the expert evidence regarding blackouts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Crown overstated the evidence in some instances, the trial judge's instructions adequately corrected the errors and prevented prejudice.

The appellants appealed their convictions related to a marijuana grow operation, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The trial judge found that both appellants knew the house contained a grow operation, secured the door upon leaving, and were present to care for the plants.

The appellants argued their presence might have been for general house maintenance, raising a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the maintenance theory and concluding the verdict was not unreasonable.