Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly address the Long-Term Offender (LTO) question.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the medical experts were not examined on the LTO issue and the trial judge did not effectively decide the question.

The court concluded that a new hearing was necessary.

The appellant sued her father for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse.

The father had previously been convicted of criminal offences based on the same conduct.

At the civil trial, the father adduced evidence from his two sons, who claimed they had committed the abuse, not him.

The trial judge accepted this evidence and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in permitting the father to relitigate the underlying facts of his criminal conviction.

The evidence of the sons was not 'fresh evidence' as it was known prior to the criminal trial, and allowing the relitigation constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant failed to serve the notice of appeal or any appeal documents on the respondent.

The respondent had been successful below in setting aside a notice of default.

The Court of Appeal struck the appeal from the list and ordered the appellant to properly serve the notice of appeal within two weeks, failing which the appeal would be deemed abandoned.

The young person appealed his convictions for robbery and using an imitation firearm during a home invasion, as well as his sentence of 16 months secure custody and eight months community supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fingerprint evidence compelling.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by ignoring the Youth Criminal Justice Act and focusing on general deterrence.

While a custodial sentence was warranted because the home invasion constituted a 'violent offence', the Court varied the sentence to 15 months (six months secure, four months open, five months supervision) due to mitigating factors and confirmed the court's jurisdiction to combine open and secure custody for a single offence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred by applying a Vetrovec warning to a key defence witness who claimed to have committed the offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed that applying a Vetrovec warning to defence evidence was an error in law.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred given the strong eyewitness identification evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding an enforceable agreement to pay a success fee and assessing damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in finding an agreement and that her assessment of damages, based on factors such as amounts typically paid to investment bankers, time spent, and value added, was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in convicting the appellant based on a single communication on the date specified, as the offence requires repeated communication.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Court also varied a probation condition regarding child access, holding that the Family Court was capable of properly supervising the appellant's relationship with his children.

The appellant pleaded guilty to fraud-related offences after defrauding his employer of over $70,000 to finance gambling and stock market activities.

He was sentenced to four months' incarceration, two years' probation, and ordered to make full restitution.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for denying a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately explained the decision, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly prioritized denunciation and general deterrence for a breach of trust fraud.

The respondents sought to expand their hog farming operation and obtained provincial approval for a nutrient management plan, which required a 100-metre setback from a municipal well.

The appellant municipality had passed a zoning by-law prohibiting intensive livestock operations within a larger two-year capture zone to protect groundwater.

The municipality argued the by-law enhanced provincial standards, while the respondents argued the provincial regulation superseded the by-law under s. 61 of the Nutrient Management Act.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 61 displaced the common law 'impossibility of dual compliance' test.

The Court found that both the regulation and the by-law addressed the same subject matter—the regulation of livestock operations and nutrient management—rendering the municipal by-law inoperative.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant wife appealed an order denying an adjournment of a motion to have funds held in court stand as security for future spousal support payments.

The respondent husband was legally entitled to the funds and was not in default of his monthly support payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the wife's claim of a lack of a meaningful remedy was speculative and that the motion judge did not err in using an injunction-like analysis to deny the adjournment, as granting it would have effectively stayed the payment out of court.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching of his stepdaughter.

The complainant had given birth to a child, and DNA evidence established the appellant as the father.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to give an adequate caution regarding evidence of an earlier incident of sexual touching and by failing to adequately answer a jury question about the credibility of the complainant's account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material error in the jury charge or the trial judge's response to the jury's questions.

The appellant, a former law student, sued three classmates, the Dean of Law, and the University of Ottawa for defamation, slander, and negligence arising from allegations of sexual harassment.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge's reasons demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias based on a perceived stereotype that the appellant suffered from a mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's comments were descriptors of the appellant's conduct and that the appellant had put his own mental health in issue.

The trial judge's adverse credibility findings were amply supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his sentence for serious offences, including two violent robberies and attending a probation office with a loaded handgun.

He argued the trial judge erred in weighing his remorse and guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences.

Leave to appeal the sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The motion judge declared a two-year-old child in need of protection but ordered the child returned to the parents.

When the child protection worker inspected the parents' home the next day, she found it unsanitary and unsafe, and decided to proceed with a technical apprehension rather than returning the child immediately.

The parents remedied the defects and the child was returned a few days later.

The parents brought a motion for contempt of court, which the motion judge granted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt finding, holding that the original order was ambiguous regarding the agency's right to inspect and respond to safety concerns, and that the motion judge erred by resolving contradictory affidavit evidence on a quasi-criminal contempt motion.

The appellants, Deloitte & Touche LLP and two of its partners, appealed an order enforcing letters rogatory issued by a U.S. court in a securities fraud class action against Nortel Networks Corp. The letters rogatory sought the production of extensive audit working papers and the testimony of the two partners.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the evidence was relevant, crucial, otherwise unavailable, and that its production would not be unduly burdensome or infringe Canadian sovereignty.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an order permitting it to enter the respondents' units to carry out mould remediation.

The corporation argued that the respondents' chosen method of remediation was insufficient and created a dangerous condition under s. 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings that the corporation failed to prove a risk of mould spreading to other units.

The Court also held that the deference standard from Dvorchik did not apply because the corporation's remediation requirement was not a formal rule and involved competing statutory rights.

The Crown appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and awarding $2.52 million in compensatory damages plus $400,000 in punitive damages to a software developer.

The trial judge found that the government deliberately undermined the objectives of a portal development agreement by secretly encouraging a subcontractor to develop a competing product, breaching an implied duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings on liability and compensatory damages, concluding the government's conduct undermined the contract's business efficacy and the parties' reasonable expectations.

However, the Court set aside the punitive damages award, finding it served no rational purpose since the breach of good faith already formed the basis of the compensatory damages.

The developer's cross-appeal for lost market value and lost opportunities was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a correction to an earlier endorsement dated April 28, 2006.

The correction clarified that all references to the appellant in the previous endorsement should be changed to refer to the respondent.

The appellants' parked motor vehicle was destroyed by a fire allegedly caused by a transmission fluid leak.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in s. 206(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, relying on the binding precedent of Karakas v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while there was arguable merit to the appellants' claim that Karakas was at odds with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court was not asked to overrule Karakas and the present case could not be distinguished from it.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding the elderly respondents damages, including $250,000 each in general non-pecuniary damages, after an oil spill destroyed their home.

The appellant argued that a mistrial should have been declared due to prejudicial evidence regarding insurance and settlement negotiations, and that the damages were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfair prejudice to warrant a mistrial and concluding that while the general damages award was high, it was reasonably open to the jury given the devastating impact of the loss of the respondents' home.