Robert A. Blair

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action and allowing the respondent's counterclaim on a promissory note arising from a share purchase agreement.

The appellants had alleged unconscionability, economic duress, and oppression.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by deciding which competing inferences should be preferred from primary facts in evidence on a motion for summary judgment.

The court concluded there were genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim on a personal guarantee.

The respondent, a bookkeeper, signed a document described to her as being for 'standard credit information' without reading the small print containing the guarantee.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's application of the Tilden v. Clendenning principle, finding that the appellant knew or ought to have known the respondent would not read the form and did nothing to bring the guarantee to her attention.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision, arguing that the binding precedent of Karakas was at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Heredi v. Fensom and attempting to distinguish their case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the case could not be distinguished from Karakas and that the automobile was not merely ancillary to the damage caused.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its oppression claim regarding the sale of a debtor's assets and the refusal to permit redemption of shares.

The Court of Appeal assumed jurisdiction without deciding the issue.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was a participant in the prior receivership proceedings where the sale was approved and chose to take no position.

The proper time and place to protest the unfairness of the sale was during the motion to approve the sale in the receivership proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding the viva voce evidence of their medical expert because no report was filed.

The Court of Appeal held that even if this was an error, it would not have affected the trial judge's decision on the threshold question, as she had the expert's detailed notes and found the appellant lacked credibility.

However, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding pre-offer costs.

The trial judge had awarded no costs for proceedings prior to the defendants' settlement offer without providing reasons.

Applying Rule 76.13, the Court found it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to commence the action under the ordinary procedure and awarded them partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for defaulted loans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the loan defaults despite some inaccuracies in the bank's documents.

The court also rejected the appellant wife's claims of undue influence and non est factum regarding a personal line of credit, noting she signed the documents at her husband's request without reading them and there was no freestanding obligation for the bank to provide independent legal advice.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning a share purchase agreement.

The trial judge had found that a $31,000 payment was on account of a promissory note, awarded $35,000 in damages for misrepresentation regarding a submerged waste oil tank, and ordered the parties to split accounting fees.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings regarding the promissory note and the waste oil tank, finding them supported by the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the accounting fees, finding no legal or contractual basis to order the defendants to pay half of the fees incurred by the purchased corporation.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal quashed the appeal.

The moving party was awarded $5,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable solely by the appellant Berg Mesrop.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal but failed to provide reasons capable of review.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged this error of law but reviewed the trial record directly.

The Court found that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, applied the correct standard of proof, and considered the evidence as a whole.

The verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against a minor, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury charge regarding inconsistencies in the child complainant's testimony and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's charge was fair and adequately addressed the assessment of child testimony and inconsistencies.

The Court also held the verdict was not unreasonable, as there was ample evidence to support it and the inconsistency did not relate to an essential element of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that an oral agreement existed between the parties.

The agreement provided that the respondent would provide exclusive management services to the appellants' retirement residences in exchange for a 5% value-added equity position upon termination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion, which was supported by objective evidence, surrounding circumstances, and the history between the parties.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of costs.

Considering the general importance of the issues, the limited success achieved by the appellant, and the appellant's advancement of new arguments not raised before the motion judge, the court set aside the motion judge's costs order and ordered that the parties bear their own costs both in the Court of Appeal and in the court below.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent mother sole custody of their child and permitting her to relocate to Quebec.

The father argued the mother interfered with his access and that the trial judge failed to apply the maximum contact principle or give proper weight to the custody assessor's report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The court emphasized that trial judges are owed considerable deference in custody matters and that the weight given to expert evidence is for the trier of fact.

The mobility clause was struck out as moot since the mother had already returned to Ontario.

The appellants, who had limited English proficiency, attended a settlement meeting regarding a motor vehicle accident claim.

The husband signed a release but allegedly instructed his solicitor to hold it until he consulted his wife, who was also a plaintiff.

The solicitor released the document to the respondent, and the appellants promptly instructed the solicitor to reject the settlement.

The motion judge enforced the settlement based on the solicitor's apparent authority.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider the wife's lack of agreement and the discretionary exceptions to enforcing settlements where there is a mistake concerning instructions and no prejudice to the defendant.

The appellant manufacturer sued a competitor and its employee for slander, inducement of breach of contract, and interference with economic relations after the employee allegedly told customers the appellant's product was dangerous.

The slander claim was withdrawn as it was outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge struck the remaining claims, finding they were an attempt to indirectly plead slander.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the economic torts were distinct causes of action that provided remedies for commercial losses not covered by slander, and were therefore not barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent bank's motion for summary judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge misapplied the test for summary judgment, improperly dismissed their claim that the minutes were altered without permission, and made implicit factual findings on conflicting evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial, as the documentation clearly showed the appellants agreed to a $100,000 settlement on a $125,000 loan, and bald assertions in a self-serving affidavit did not create a triable issue.

The appellants, investors in a failed real estate redevelopment project, appealed the dismissal of their claims for rescission and damages against the promoter, Shelter Corporation.

The trial judge found that Shelter breached numerous contractual commitments, causing the loss of the investment, but held that rescission was unavailable and no damages were proven because the project was too heavily leveraged to survive the market downturn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the breaches were not fundamental and that the appellants had not proven substantial damages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of awarding nominal damages of $1 to each appellant for the proven breaches of contract.

A cross-appeal by the financial institutions regarding equitable set-off and penalty interest rates was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay over $10.6 million to class action plaintiffs.

The appellant argued the loss was caused by his business being placed into receivership, not his fraudulent conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial as the appellant's guilty plea evidenced his fraudulent conduct as the cause of the loss.

The court also rejected the argument to limit the judgment to a specific sub-class, noting the damages were adequately assessed in a reference process.

The appellants, holders of Convertible Notes of Stelco, appealed an order establishing an expedited claims process to determine inter-creditor subordination claims in a CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued they were entitled to a full civil trial process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CCAA plan explicitly contemplated a timely process to determine entitlements to the turnover proceeds, and the supervising judge's discretionary scheduling order was entitled to deference.

The appellant mortgagor appealed an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation and dismissing his motion to determine the redemption amount for mortgages on his property.

The property had already been sold by the respondent mortgagee under a power of sale before the motion was heard.

At the hearing, the appellant orally requested that the sale be set aside.

The motion judge refused, noting the purchaser was not a party and the relief was not sought in the notice of motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that any challenge to the sale required proper pleadings and notice to the purchaser.