Robert A. Blair

The appellant sued the Attorney General of Canada for improperly rejecting his proposal submitted in response to a Request for Proposal for Informatics Professional Services.

The proposal was rejected because the appellant's proposed personnel lacked the required security clearance.

The motions judge granted partial summary judgment to the respondent, finding no triable issue as the mandatory security requirements were not met.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no ambiguity in the RFP documents and no basis to interfere.

The appellant appealed a decision enforcing a Guarantee after breaching a Forbearance Agreement by failing to provide access to documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's last-minute request for cross-examination and confirming the debt was still owing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that it would be unjust to decide the issues on a motion for summary judgment in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant was permitted to discover what happened to the monies and why they were not repaid to him.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached its contractual obligations to develop a product and use best efforts to meet time goals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions that the respondent received no value and the breaches were not condoned.

The court found no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant husband appealed an order incorporating minutes of settlement.

The husband, who was unsophisticated, on a disability pension, and had poor English, attended a case conference without a translator and did not understand the minutes of settlement.

Furthermore, there were no up-to-date financial statements, unanswered allegations of the wife's failure to disclose, and an issue regarding spousal support.

The Court of Appeal set aside the minutes of settlement and the lower court orders, finding no prejudice to the wife, and referred the matter back to the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation and dismissing a motion to determine the redemption amount for mortgages on a property that had already been sold under power of sale.

The appellant had orally requested the motion judge to set aside the sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's refusal to set aside the sale, noting that the purchaser was not a party to the proceedings, had not been served, and the relief was not sought in the notice of motion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to murder, and possession of explosives in relation to a contract killing.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in exchange for his testimony.

The appellants appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, primarily focusing on errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to give an adequate Vetrovec warning regarding the unsavoury Crown witnesses, improperly gave a Vetrovec-like warning regarding a defence witness, and failed to instruct the jury properly on a hearsay statement.

The appellant was convicted of assault and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, failed to apply the W.(D.) framework, and should have drawn an adverse inference from a lack of corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the summary conviction appeal judge's review, noting that credibility assessments are the province of the trial judge.

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

The appellant was convicted of assault and his summary conviction appeal to the Superior Court was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, failed to properly apply the W.D. framework, and should have drawn an adverse inference from the lack of corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the summary conviction appeal judge's conclusion that the trial judge's findings were reasonable and fully supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of murder in 1976, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention in a minimum secure unit with a provision allowing him to live in the community in 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

The appellant argued the order was defective because the person in charge required a facility with awake staff 24 hours a day, which did not exist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant risk was reasonable and the order was not defective.

However, the Court urged the Board to address the impasse between the treatment team and the person in charge at the upcoming annual review.

The appellant appealed his jury convictions for a convenience store robbery and possession of a stolen vehicle, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the stolen getaway vehicle days prior to the robbery, and speculative theories regarding his knowledge of the store's panic button and a knife used in the robbery.

Exculpatory evidence included DNA from masks that did not match the appellant and an eyewitness description of the getaway driver's hair colour that did not match the appellant's red hair.

The Court of Appeal found the evidence too tenuous to support an inference of guilt and concluded the verdicts were unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and acquittals were entered.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent insured's 5R production facility was a separate location under the policy and that only one accident occurred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the facility was added as a separate location by endorsement.

The Court also agreed that the accidental breakdown continued until the compressor was successfully repaired on the second attempt, meaning there was only one accident.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dealing in passports and breach of trust after stealing 246 blank passports from her employer, the Scarborough Passport Office.

She was sentenced to 5.5 years imprisonment.

On appeal, the Crown conceded the trial judge erred in principle by treating an unproven profit motive as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the offence was not the worst envisaged by the statute and emphasizing the appellant's youth and lack of prior record.

The global sentence was reduced to 4.5 years, resulting in a net sentence of 4 years after credit for pre-trial custody and bail conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to set aside a noting in default and enforcing a U.S. District Court judgment.

They argued there was a failure of natural justice because the self-represented appellant was not permitted to read her prepared submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge merely assisted in focusing submissions and committed no error in principle in refusing to set aside the default.

The court ordered a stay of execution pending the final resolution of the appellants' appeals in the United States.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he breached his duty of confidentiality to his former employer by exploiting information related to a government contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the information regarding the contract's renewal and the client's needs was not confidential, as it was widely known and solicited by the government.

Furthermore, the appellant's knowledge of his own skills and qualifications, which he provided to a competing bidder, was his own information and not the property of the respondent.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error, concluding the trial judge was amply justified on the record to find the respondent had a reasonable basis for its allegations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $24,000.

The appellants appealed an order excising references to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from their statement of claim.

The parties had entered into the MOU for a wind energy project, which the respondent later purported to terminate while under CCAA protection.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in determining the validity of the termination notice on a Rule 21 motion and in concluding that the appellants were precluded from pleading a good faith obligation arising from the MOU.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay compensation to the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty in a failed restaurant venture.

The trial judge found the appellant breached his duty by causing his solely owned corporation to enter into a secret lease agreement with the partnership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Partnership Act did not preclude the respondent from suing in his own right, the respondent had not elected an exclusive remedy, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding a breach of fiduciary duty or in the remedy awarded.

The Court also significantly reduced the respondent's costs claim, finding it excessive.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Securities Act.

The trial judge had held that the appellants had a continuing obligation to disclose poor intra-quarterly financial results before the closing of their initial public offering, and that their failure to do so rendered an implied representation of objective reasonableness in their financial forecast false.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act distinguishes between material facts and material changes, and imposes no continuing obligation to disclose material facts after a prospectus receipt is issued.

The Court further held that the trial judge erred in implying a representation of objective reasonableness and in failing to apply the business judgment rule to management's assessment of the forecast.

The appellant sued several Crown Attorneys, a probation officer, and a lawyer for intentional torts, including abuse of public office, arising from his prosecution for breach of bail conditions and domestic assault.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding it failed to plead sufficient facts to establish the requisite malice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that a high threshold of proof is required to establish liability for prosecutorial misconduct and that the appellant's allegations amounted to mere speculation or impermissible collateral attacks on his bail order.