Robert A. Blair

The appellant pleaded guilty to assaulting his former partner with a knife and was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration followed by 2 years' probation.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred by declining to impose a conditional sentence and that the sentence was outside the accepted range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that a conditional sentence would endanger community safety and fail to address denunciation and deterrence.

The 18-month custodial term was deemed fit given the serious, unprovoked nature of the domestic assault.

The appellant appealed an order varying his child and spousal support obligations, arguing the reduction should have been greater and retroactive to the date of the application.

He also challenged the determination of his income, the removal of a clause reducing spousal support based on the respondent's income, and the exclusion of orthodontic expenses from a settlement of arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no error in the application judge's income determination, removal of the support reduction clause, or effective date of the variation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the settlement of 'all arrearages' included the $10,360 in orthodontic expenses.

The Court of Appeal ordered a lawyer to personally pay $5,000 in costs thrown away due to the adjournment of an appeal.

The order was made pursuant to Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, based solely on the lawyer's failure to take appropriate action to enable the court to hear the appeal in a timely manner, despite several orders and directions establishing timelines.

The appellants appealed a judgment of Justice Snowie.

The Court of Appeal reluctantly adjourned the appeal due to allegations in a fresh evidence motion and a recent change of solicitors by the respondents.

The new hearing date was made peremptory on the respondents.

The court set a timetable for responding materials, cross-examinations, and factums.

Costs of the day were reserved to allow the respondents' former counsel an opportunity to respond to submissions that he should pay the costs personally.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that denied her compound interest and refused to enforce NSF, late payment, and collection letter charges on three promissory notes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the interest calculation method was ambiguous and that the additional charges, combined with a 25% interest rate, constituted an unconscionable penalty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding entitlement to a deposit for a condominium unit.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge that the appellant's interpretation of the agreement, which would make the purchaser of an individual unit liable for the purchase price of the entire building or damages flowing from breaches between the developer and Skyline, made no commercial sense.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $15,000 to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice Swinton.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to comment on the standard of review and agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge which adequately dealt with the grounds of appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Crown appealed a decision granting the respondents lawful ownership of an island by way of adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's weighing of affidavit evidence or his conclusion that the respondents met the three-pronged test for possessory title.

The Court upheld the finding that the land was not vacant or wasteland, rendering section 16 of the Limitations Act inapplicable.

The Crown appealed a decision quashing a search warrant executed at a physiotherapy clinic during an insurance fraud investigation.

The application judge had ruled that the issuing justice of the peace lacked jurisdiction because the warrant did not include special post-seizure conditions to protect the privacy of patients' medical records.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 487 of the Criminal Code adequately balances state and privacy interests.

The Court found no principled basis to engraft mandatory common law conditions onto the statutory scheme for the seizure of non-privileged medical records.

The appellant appealed a confirmation order made under section 19 of the Divorce Act, which fixed child support based on imputed income and confirmed spousal support arrears.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to consider his motion to rescind the arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's findings of fact supported the imputation of income and the confirmation of child support, and that the circumstances were not sufficiently egregious to support rescinding the spousal support arrears.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the scope and effect of an officer's contact with the jury and in failing to conduct an inquiry of the affected jurors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the requirement to dispel a reasonable apprehension of bias and made no error in principle in exercising his discretion not to examine the jurors, especially given defence counsel's position at trial that nothing untoward had occurred.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentence that would warrant appellate intervention.

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

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a forbearance agreement.

At the opening of the appeal, the appellants abandoned a motion alleging reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact on misrepresentation, parol evidence, and reasonable notice were supported by the evidence.

The court also rejected a new argument based on the forbearance agreement, as it contemplated future terms rather than past representations.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault against his wife.

During deliberations, the jury asked to review the testimony of the appellant and the complainant.

The trial judge permitted the jury to watch an unofficial video recording of the trial proceedings in the jury room without counsel present and without controlling which portions were viewed.

The Court of Appeal held this was a fatal error, as responses to jury questions must occur in open court to ensure the accused's right to be present and the judge's control over the proceedings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action on the grounds that her re-amended statement of claim was verbose, pleaded evidence, attempted to re-litigate matters finally disposed of, and was an abuse of process.

The appellant also brought a preliminary motion to strike the respondents' affidavits because they were sworn by associates in the same law firms as counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the preliminary motion, finding the affidavits dealt with facts already on the record.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the underlying basis for the appellant's claims—the trustee's right to proceed with the sale of the matrimonial home after the husband's discharge from bankruptcy—had been conclusively determined in earlier proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria, specifically the due diligence and impact on the result requirements.

The court noted that trial counsel had made a tactical decision not to pursue the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that grounds existed.

The Court further noted that even if grounds were lacking, the evidence obtained from the search would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant's sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that Ontario was forum non conveniens for an action on an insurance policy.

The appellant argued the motions judge failed to consider Articles 68 and 69 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Quebec Code was not relevant to the forum non conveniens analysis in Ontario, as Ontario's jurisdiction derives from its own law.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the motions judge's weighing of the factors, agreeing that the action's connection was almost totally with Quebec.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts of break and enter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions on counts one and four, finding it was open to the trial judge to apply the doctrine of recent possession given the unique combination of stolen items (a marked two-dollar bill and 88-cent stamps) found on the appellant.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on counts two and three, setting aside the convictions and entering acquittals, as there was no evidence linking the appellant to those specific break-ins other than proximity, and there was exculpatory evidence regarding the intruder's shoes.

The appellants appealed a decision staying their action on an insurance policy on the basis of forum non conveniens.

They argued the motions judge failed to consider Articles 68 and 69 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, which allow an action to be instituted in the domicile of the insured.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Quebec procedural rules are irrelevant to an Ontario forum non conveniens analysis.

The court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the action's connection was almost entirely with Quebec.