Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving over 80, arguing that the breathalyzer test was not administered 'as soon as practicable' as required by the Criminal Code.

The evidence showed an unexplained 33-minute gap between the appellant's attendance before the officer in charge and the call to duty counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider this gap and apply the test of whether the breath test was administered within a reasonably prompt time.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting a young foster child in his care and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.

He appealed both the conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to credibility issues with the complainant, and the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the jury's assessment of credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in principle by declining a conditional sentence and imposing incarceration.

The appellant appealed a summary trial judgment ordering the return of a $20,000 condominium deposit to the respondent.

The trial judge had found the respondent mentally incompetent to enter the agreement of purchase and sale based solely on a medical report from her psychiatrist.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the medical report was improperly admitted into evidence because it was not supported by an affidavit nor filed in compliance with section 52 of the Evidence Act, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor.

The appellants, Axor Construction Canada Inc. and London Guarantee Insurance Company, appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $455,462.85 in damages under the Construction Lien Act.

The dispute arose from a construction subcontract where the appellant stopped payment on a certified cheque due to a backcharge related to a Fair Wage Policy.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's actions, including stopping payment and demanding an unjustified bond, constituted a fundamental breach of contract that excused the respondent from continued performance.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order clarifying a previous judgment regarding interest payable to a dissenting shareholder under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge initially ordered interest 'in accordance with section 185' and later clarified that only postjudgment interest would be awarded from the date of judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge retained jurisdiction to specify both the rate and the time period for interest, and properly exercised his discretion.

The applicant, a former public service employee, sought judicial review of an order of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board that incorporated a settlement reached between his union and his employer regarding his termination.

The applicant argued the termination was a nullity due to lack of delegated authority.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant lacked standing to pursue the judicial review, as only the union, as the bargaining agent, had the authority to process and settle the grievance under the collective agreement.

The defendants appealed a decision refusing to strike out paragraphs of a statement of claim in a proposed national class proceeding regarding the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The defendants argued the representative plaintiff, an Ontario resident, could not assert causes of action under the legislation of other provinces, such as subrogated health insurance claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Class Proceedings Act permits a representative plaintiff to advance claims on behalf of class members that the plaintiff might not have personally.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to explicitly plead the out-of-province statutes relied upon as material facts.

A ratepayers' association applied for judicial review of a school board's decision to lease a closed school site to a private developer for a seniors' complex.

The ratepayers argued the board breached a duty of fairness by failing to consult the public before approving the lease, relying on a voluntary board policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board owed no general duty of fairness to local residents regarding the disposition of surplus property.

Furthermore, the board's internal policy did not create a legitimate expectation of public consultation because it was not published or relied upon by the community.

The applicant, an African-Canadian male, sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer his complaint against the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to a board of inquiry.

The applicant alleged that the law school's reliance on LSAT scores for admission constituted systemic discrimination against African-Canadians.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable, as it had considered extensive evidence showing the law school used a holistic admissions policy rather than strict numerical cut-offs.

The court also dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his solicitor negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The appellant alleged that the lawyer's negligence in advising him and representing him at a bail hearing resulted in his 30-day detention.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no causal connection between the lawyer's actions and the detention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the Employment Standards Act awarding the respondent employee vacation pay for his last two years of employment.

The employer argued the employee had ample down time during the winter months to take vacation in lieu of pay.

The adjudicator found the employee worked year-round and was entitled to vacation pay.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, found no palpable or overriding error in the adjudicator's findings, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing an employee's discharge grievance.

The employee was terminated following a workplace altercation where he verbally and physically confronted a more senior employee.

The applicant argued the arbitrator breached natural justice, made findings without evidence, and improperly failed to substitute a lesser penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of fairness, sufficient evidence to support the arbitrator's findings, and no improper considerations in the penalty assessment.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Human Rights Commission refusing to deal with his age discrimination complaint on the basis that it was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The applicant argued that the Commission breached the rules of natural justice by providing insufficient reasons and that its decision was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's screening function attracts a standard of patent unreasonableness, the reasons provided were adequate for an administrative screening decision, and the decision to dismiss the complaint for untimeliness was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the Director's denial of his application for income support as a disabled person under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding and misapprehending medical evidence, specifically by discounting reports from one family physician in favour of another.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal carefully reviewed the medical evidence, noted discrepancies with the appellant's testimony, and made no palpable or overriding error of fact.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal establishing a pricing formula for live chickens in Ontario and ordering the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend its regulations to implement the formula.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Farm Products Marketing Act to establish the pricing formula, fix the starting price, and direct the Commission to amend its regulations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating an employee who was terminated for excessive innocent absenteeism under an attendance management system.

The arbitrator found that the termination violated the Human Rights Code because the absences relied upon included a compensable workplace injury, and the employer failed to show undue hardship in accommodating the employee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the arbitrator's decision and finding no error in the arbitrator's application of human rights principles regarding the duty to accommodate.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $7,000 to the respondent.

The trial judge found that the respondent and the appellant Tony Chao had an oral agreement wherein Chao would hold $7,000 in trust for the respondent in a dormant corporate account.

The appellants argued that the respondent breached his fiduciary duties as an officer and lawyer for the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample uncontradicted evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that this was a simple contract and no fiduciary duty was breached.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment to enforce a $50,000 penalty clause under minutes of settlement.

The respondent had defaulted on the final payment due to a dishonoured cheque caused by an administrative change, and a replacement cheque had a minor shortfall, both of which were corrected promptly.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to exercise her discretion under Rule 49.09 to decline enforcement of the penalty clause, finding no palpable or overriding error.

The appellant teacher appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Teachers revoking her teaching certificate after she was found guilty of professional misconduct for an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in admitting expert evidence on 'grooming' at the penalty phase since she was acquitted of actual abuse.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the admission of expert evidence was proper and the penalty of revocation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal confirming the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice and that the tribunal erred in its factual findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing was appropriate, hearsay evidence was permitted under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, and there was ample evidence to support the revocation.