Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed his sentence for production of marijuana.

The trial judge had more than doubled the custodial sentence originally sought by the Crown because the appellant failed to attend his sentence hearing and was arrested on another drug possession charge in the interim.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge overreacted to these post-conviction circumstances and failed to adequately apply the parity principle respecting the sentencing of co-accused.

Leave to appeal was granted and the sentence was reduced to twelve months plus pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge, which had dismissed an appeal from a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the reasoning of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that evidence obtained during a strip search should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that strip searches are inherently intrusive and should not be routine, citing Golden.

However, the Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to admit the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings ordered by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, despite the societal interest in having criminal cases proceed to trial.

The appellant was convicted of assault and received a conditional discharge.

Her summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

She appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting her testimony and accepting the complainant's version of events.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, they demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidence, correctly applied the burden of proof and the W.(D.) test, and met the functional requirement for adequate reasons.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual touching of a child under the age of fourteen.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence on key points and overemphasized irrelevant considerations when disbelieving the appellant.

Specifically, the trial judge incorrectly stated that the appellant did not deny the conduct, incorrectly stated that the appellant confirmed he was drinking, and appeared to engage in improper propensity reasoning based on the appellant's criminal record.

The moving party, having been committed for civil contempt and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, brought a motion to stay the sentence pending his appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay, noting that whether analyzed under the civil test for a stay or the criminal provisions for judicial release pending appeal, the moving party raised serious questions to be determined and would suffer irreparable harm if required to serve the sentence before the appeal was heard.

The stay was granted subject to strict conditions, including a requirement to surrender into custody prior to the appeal hearing.

The appellant challenged jury convictions for multiple sexual offences against two child complainants and appealed an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The court rejected the unreasonable verdict argument, holding that despite material inconsistencies, the core allegations remained intact and the jury was properly instructed on credibility concerns.

The court also held that medical opinion evidence concerning vaginal penetration was relevant to one complainant but irrelevant to counts involving the other complainant; however, the evidentiary error and absence of a limiting instruction caused no substantial wrong and were cured under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

On sentence, the court found the trial judge had set the range too high by over-relying on a more aggravated comparator case and reduced the custodial sentence to six and a half years, in addition to pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, a former Crown Attorney suffering from bipolar affective disorder, pleaded guilty to fraud and breach of trust for misappropriating funds from a charity and a client, and for improperly negotiating plea bargains to secure restitution for that client.

The sentencing judge imposed a total of 24 months' incarceration, finding that the medical evidence did not support a causal link between the appellant's mental illness and his criminal behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge misconstrued the psychiatric evidence regarding the inadequacy of the appellant's lithium levels and his uncontrolled hypomanic state.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was varied to a blended sentence of 12 months' incarceration followed by a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellants were convicted of multiple offences arising from a conspiracy to rob commercial establishments.

They appealed their convictions on numerous grounds, including alleged errors in the jury charge regarding the standard of proof, co-conspirator statements, and the failure to give a Vetrovec caution.

They also appealed evidentiary rulings, including the admission of a DNA warrant and the voluntariness of a police statement, as well as the refusal to sever their trials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors.

Leave to appeal the sentences was granted; one appellant's sentence appeal was dismissed, but the other appellant's sentence was reduced from six to four years imprisonment due to his status as a first-time offender with good rehabilitation prospects.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his ex-girlfriend.

At trial, he conceded guilt for manslaughter but argued his intoxication and emotional state raised a reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent for murder.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by using a two-step 'capacity' and 'actual intent' charge for intoxication, and by improperly answering a jury question about the difference between the intent for murder and manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge did not mislead the jury into believing capacity was the only relevant inquiry, and the trial judge correctly answered the jury's question.

The appellant appealed his sentence for an illegal entry offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose the maximum penalty given the pattern of the appellant's crimes and association with illegal entries.

Although the sentencing judge did not clearly enunciate the credit given for pretrial custody, the total sentence imposed was fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a costs award following a nine-day trial regarding a broker's failure to carry out trading instructions.

The trial judge had awarded the plaintiff solicitor-client costs from the date of an offer to settle, but reduced the claimed amount of $182,183 to $50,000, finding it excessive.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by effectively applying party and party principles to a solicitor-client costs award without analyzing what conduct by the plaintiff contributed to the trial's length.

The Court fixed the trial costs at $155,000.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim against the respondent university.

The Court of Appeal found that although the procedure followed below was unclear, the motion judge was entitled to strike the pleading under Rule 25.11 as being untenable in law, given the dispute was essentially an academic matter.

The court also upheld the refusal to grant leave to file a fresh statement of claim in contract, concluding the claim could not possibly succeed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his six-month sentence for possession of a large quantity of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred by effectively excluding a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the trial judge properly considered denunciation, deterrence, the appellant's circumstances, guilty plea, and remorse, but correctly concluded a period of incarceration was required.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board erred in refusing his request for an adjournment after the hospital's position regarding his transfer shifted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board has discretion to conduct its own proceedings and did not err in law in refusing the adjournment.

However, the Court urged that necessary testing for the appellant's transfer be completed at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The parties agreed that costs should follow the event but left the determination of the quantum to the court.

The court fixed costs in the amount of $15,000 all-inclusive, payable by the respondent to the appellants.

The appellant, Country Style Realty Limited, underwent CCAA restructuring.

It chose not to repudiate its commercial lease with the respondent landlord, Ivorylane Corporation.

Ivorylane had a pre-CCAA claim for rent arrears but did not receive notice of the claims process and did not file a proof of claim.

After Country Style emerged from CCAA protection, Ivorylane sued for the arrears.

Country Style argued the claim was barred by the CCAA Plan of Compromise.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that because the lease was not repudiated, the arrears constituted an 'Unaffected Obligation' under the specific terms of the Plan and Sanction Order, and therefore the claim was not compromised or barred.

The appellants, bondholders of BC Tel (predecessor to Telus), appealed a trial decision finding that BC Tel did not breach a 'no financial advantage covenant' when it redeemed bonds using proceeds from a securitization transaction.

The covenant prohibited redemption using funds obtained directly or indirectly through borrowings with an interest cost less than 11.35%.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while the securitization involved a 'true sale' of accounts receivable, the transaction as a whole functioned to raise capital from the public.

Thus, the proceeds applied to redeem the bonds constituted funds indirectly obtained through borrowings at an interest cost to the company of less than 11.35%, violating the covenant.

The appellant challenged the sale of a cemetery by the Ontario Realty Corporation to a private company proposing to build a crematorium, seeking judicial review of the Director's decision to issue a certificate of air approval and the ORC's environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the Director's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the ORC correctly concluded it was not required to apply its class environmental assessment process to the purchaser's subsequent planning actions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.