Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed her sentence for aggravated assault, arguing it exceeded the range suggested by Crown counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reformatory sentence and three years' probation to be fit and balanced.

The court noted the gravity of the crime and the appellant's lengthy record for violent offences, while also recognizing her remorse and efforts to overcome drug and alcohol problems.

The appellant obstetrician appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for negligence in the delivery of the respondent's child.

The trial judge found that the appellant fell below the standard of care by improperly using forceps, which caused injuries to the respondent's uterus, and by negligently suturing the injuries, which occluded her ureter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in his factual findings and properly relied on the evidence of the respondents' expert.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment on the grounds that the trial judge refused to grant an adjournment when the appellant was not present for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to adjourn given the lack of explanation for the appellant's absence.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on personal liability and damages, noting that the damages calculation was based on a spreadsheet provided well before trial.

Counsel for the appellants brought a motion to be removed from the record.

The court granted the order removing counsel.

As the remaining appellant failed to appear despite being advised that the appeal would proceed, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his sentence of imprisonment.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the appellant's age, learning disability, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and efforts to atone.

The appeal was allowed, and the remainder of the sentence was converted into a conditional sentence.

Blair J.A. dissented, finding no error in principle by the sentencing judge.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and failing to stop after striking a pedestrian and fleeing the scene.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the jury instructions were flawed.

The Crown appealed the 30-month sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the verdict was supported by the evidence, the jury instructions did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the sentence was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error on the evidence before the trial judge and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $2,000.

The appellant appealed convictions for historical sexual offences against seven boys, six of whom were former speech therapy patients and one of whom was his step-nephew, as well as a six-year penitentiary sentence.

The court rejected arguments that the trial judge scrutinized the accused's memory more harshly than the complainants' recollections, failed to distinguish credibility from reliability, improperly admitted similar fact evidence, and should have quashed one count for vagueness of timeframe.

The court held that the similar fact evidence properly went to whether the actus reus occurred in the patient counts, that there was no air of reality to collusion or tainting, and that the indictment gave sufficient information to permit a defence.

The sentence was within the normal range for sexual offences by an adult in a position of trust who groomed children over time.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on charges of fraud and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him.

He argued that the extradition judge and the Minister erred by failing to order disclosure of Canadian investigative materials, alleging Charter breaches and illegalities by Canadian and American authorities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, finding that the requesting state did not rely on the Canadian evidence, there was no air of reality to the Charter claims, and the limited right to disclosure in extradition proceedings was not violated.

The appellant physician engaged in a sexual relationship with a patient and his certificate of registration was revoked pursuant to the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

He appealed, arguing the provisions violated sections 7, 12, and 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter does not protect the purely economic right to practice a profession.

Even if engaged, the provisions did not violate section 7 as they were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12, and did not infringe freedom of association under section 2(d).

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment declaring the respondent insured entitled to indemnification under a fidelity insurance bond for losses caused by employee theft.

The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the insured made material misrepresentations in its renewal application regarding its cheque signing controls and failed to disclose its shift to a computerized cheque generating system.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the insured made a material misrepresentation by stating that principals signed all cheques when, in fact, a computerized facsimile signature was used.

The Court also held that the insured breached its general obligation to disclose the significantly enhanced risk created by the new system.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow them to fundamentally recast their litigation after nine years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the amendment would inevitably prejudice the respondents, particularly given the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached their contract with the respondents by failing to perform their obligations in good faith during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the appellants breached the contract by assisting a third party in taking the respondents' business away.

The court also dismissed the appellants' argument regarding insufficient proof of damages, as well as the respondents' cross-appeal concerning the damages calculation and the dismissal of a conspiracy claim.

The appellants operated a senior citizens residence and borrowed funds through successive mortgages arranged by Morguard.

The trial judge found that Morguard and its officers committed fraud, deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty by overstating discharge amounts, charging excessive undisclosed fees, and hiding a corporate officer's personal involvement in the loans.

The trial judge awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages.

On appeal, the appellants sought punitive damages and increased compensation, while the respondents cross-appealed liability and damages, relying on a release executed by the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings and concluding that the release was properly set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellant appealed his sentence for crack-cocaine trafficking and failure to comply with recognizance.

He argued the sentence was outside the appropriate range and that the trial judge failed to consider his medical condition and the impact of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the sentence was within the appropriate range given the nature of the offence and the appellant's role.

However, the court varied the sentences for failure to comply with recognizance to time served, as the original sentences exceeded the maximum available.

The appellant appealed from a disposition order made by the Ontario Review Board, which ordered his continued detention at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to adequately consider the factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly weighed the factors and correctly concluded that continued detention was the least onerous and least restrictive alternative.

Furthermore, fresh evidence admitted on appeal demonstrated that the appellant remained a significant threat to himself and the public.

The appellant appealed an order regarding notice under the Building Code Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to notify the municipality of his change of address as required by the Assessment Act, and that the municipality had complied with the notice provision under s. 27(2) of the Building Code Act.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge failed to consider his statement to police about waving a cell phone and failed to properly apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a witness's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that defence counsel at trial had tactically withdrawn the statement from consideration to avoid reply evidence.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) principles to the defence evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences following a traffic stop.

At trial, the appellant argued the stop was motivated by racial profiling and challenged the admission of the firearm under the Charter.

The trial judge dismissed the racial profiling claim and admitted the evidence despite finding a section 8 breach.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's frequent and unnecessary interjections during the cross-examination of police witnesses compromised trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's interventions disrupted the defence's ability to effectively cross-examine key witnesses on the central issue of racial profiling, creating the appearance of an unfair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and careless storage of firearms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary conviction appeal court's dismissal of the appeal.

The court found the trial judge's factual findings—that the appellant failed to comply with police orders and assumed a gun-readiness stance, and that he left unsecured firearms and ammunition in a home with children—were amply supported by the record and demonstrated a marked departure from the standard of care.