Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed a decision denying his motion to amend his statement of defence to withdraw an admission.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge applied the incorrect legal standard, holding the appellant to the pre-Antipas standard rather than the reformulated three-part test.

The appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the change of position, stating he only realized the plaintiff had not advanced the mortgage funds upon reading the summary judgment materials.

The Court held that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue and that there was no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was permitted to amend his pleadings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for second degree murder and attempted murder, as well as his 15-year parole ineligibility period.

He argued the trial judge failed to provide a special instruction regarding identification evidence from neighbours who had picked out photos of other persons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the standard instructions were adequate and noting no objection was made at trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 15-year parole ineligibility period was within the appropriate range given the brutal nature of the attack, the home invasion, and the finding that the appellant killed the deceased to eliminate a witness.

The mother brought a motion to vary a child support order, seeking increased contribution from the father for post-secondary education expenses for their two adult sons.

The sons had substantial capital assets from gifts.

The motion judge ordered the father to pay table support and a proportionate share of the education expenses, requiring the sons to contribute only from their summer earnings.

The father appealed, arguing the sons should use their capital assets first.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the motion judge erred in failing to consider the extent to which the children should be expected to contribute to their own education expenses out of their capital assets under s. 3(2)(b) and s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a marijuana grow operation, arguing that conditional sentences are normally given for such offences in the London area.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to consider the aggravating factors that the appellant's negligence caused a fire and that his young children and partner were present in the home.

The decision not to impose a conditional sentence was entitled to deference, and the global sentence was not unfit.

The appellant abandoned his appeal against conviction.

On the appeal against the four-year sentence, the Court of Appeal found no error by the trial judge, considering the offences and the appellant's criminal record.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed paragraph 4(d) of an order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction, finding that the order was not made under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action in Ontario against Money Mart and its American parent company, Dollar Financial, alleging they charged criminal interest rates on pay-day loans.

Dollar Financial appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to set aside service ex juris and stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a good arguable case against Dollar Financial based on alter ego, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment theories.

Applying the Muscutt factors, the Court held there was a real and substantial connection between Dollar Financial and Ontario, giving the Ontario court jurisdiction.

The Crown appealed the imposition of a 20-month conditional sentence for domestic violence offences and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by underestimating the gravity of the offences and that a penitentiary sentence was clearly warranted.

However, because the respondent had already served almost 12 months of house arrest and completed a rehabilitation program, the Court declined to reincarcerate him and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a youth charged with drug possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Police officers conducted a random, warrantless search of a high school using a sniffer dog, which reacted to the youth's unattended backpack in the gymnasium.

The police searched the backpack and found marijuana and psilocybin.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the dog sniff and subsequent physical search violated the youth's section 8 Charter rights, as students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their backpacks and the search was not authorized by law or conducted reasonably.

The court affirmed the exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding of impairment, including testimony from the appellant's son and a police officer regarding her intoxication, disorientation, and odour of alcohol.

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

The appellant appealed his sentence of four years and four days for sexual touching and three counts of breach of recognizance.

The offences involved touching a young boy over his clothes, committed while the appellant was subject to an order prohibiting him from being alone with children.

The trial judge had considered a medical report indicating a likelihood of future abuse.

The Court of Appeal found that while a significant sentence was necessary for public protection, the total sentence was excessive given the low gravity of the specific offence and the fact that the medical report was not filed as an exhibit.

The court granted leave to appeal and reduced the sentence for sexual touching from three years to two years.

The parties entered into a separation agreement to resolve corollary relief proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to comply with the agreement, which was granted.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement by way of motion rather than application, and that the motion judge erred in awarding interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a motion was appropriate because the underlying action had not been dismissed, and that the motion judge had statutory authority to award interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside an assessment order obtained by his former solicitor.

The appellant argued he was never properly served with the notice of assessment, rendering the proceedings a nullity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 2.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure to properly serve the documents was an irregularity, not a nullity.

Given the appellant's excessive delay of over ten years in moving to set aside the order after becoming aware of it, the court declined to exercise its discretion to set the order aside.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and failure to comply with a probation order, as well as his sentence of seventeen months' imprisonment.

The appeal raised multiple issues, including the trial judge's decision to identify jurors by number, the admission of evidence regarding gang rivalry, the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning for an unsavoury witness, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and the theory of the defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that the verdict was reasonable and the sentence was fit.

The self-represented appellant, appealing his two convictions for first-degree murder, brought a motion for directions seeking access to disclosure, transcripts, and other trial materials, as well as orders compelling approximately forty persons to testify on the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted an order providing the appellant with direct and reasonable access to disclosure, noting the Crown's undertaking to use best efforts to provide the other requested materials.

The court dismissed the request to compel witnesses, finding the appellant failed to establish that the proposed witnesses would probably have evidence relevant to the issues raised on appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for manslaughter and sexual interference, as well as his 12-year net sentence and increased parole ineligibility.

The convictions arose from the death of a 13-year-old girl who overdosed on drugs supplied by the appellant at his home, where he also sexually assaulted her while she was comatose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant's actions in supplying and encouraging the use of lethal drugs substantially contributed to the death, and that his conduct constituted criminal negligence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the 15-year sentence for manslaughter and the order for increased parole ineligibility due to the egregious circumstances and the appellant's diagnosis of psychopathy.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for historical child sexual abuse.

At trial, the defence called a psychiatrist to testify that the complainants' allegations were the result of false memory syndrome.

The trial judge accepted the expert's qualifications in psychiatry but ultimately found the complainants had a reliable core memory of the abuse.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in her treatment of the expert evidence and misapprehended evidence regarding his expressions of remorse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence or the appellant's credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the sentence of two years less a day.

The young person appealed his conviction and sentence for administering a stupefying drug to and sexually assaulting his cousin.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his father's alibi evidence.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge properly concluded the alibi was incomplete as it left a window of opportunity for the offence.

The Court also upheld the sentence of 90 days' custody followed by probation, finding it appropriate under the Youth Criminal Justice Act given the breach of trust and violent nature of the offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on a finding that he moved a hose and reel toward the victim, but simultaneously rejected the victim's evidence that the appellant threw the reel.

The Court of Appeal held that without the victim's rejected evidence, there was no evidence to support the trial judge's finding.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of the proceeds of crime on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Crown conceded that the absence of mutual communication and confidence between the appellant and his trial counsel led to an inadequate and unfair defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the verdict unreliable, and ordered a new trial.