Robert A. Blair

The appellants appealed an order staying their action against an Alberta hotel corporation for lack of a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that none of the presumptive connecting factors were met.

The court also rejected the appellants' argument that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the forum of necessity doctrine due to the expiry of the Alberta limitation period, noting the appellants made a tactical decision not to sue in Alberta.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a jury award of zero damages and a trial judge's ruling that her claim for non-pecuniary loss did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the jury verdict was perverse and the trial judge erred in his threshold analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the appellant's post-accident difficulties were inevitable due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's threshold ruling.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing his arrest was unlawful, evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding there were objective grounds for the arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including a confidential informant tip and police surveillance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis and found no error in the assessment of evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the four-year term was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $100,000 in general damages and $75,000 in punitive damages arising from the sale of a farm property.

The Court of Appeal set aside both awards, finding that punitive damages were neither pleaded nor sought, and the general damages for harassment and mental distress were unpleaded and unsupported by expert medical evidence or adequate reasons.

The trial costs award was upheld, and the appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.

The respondent brought a motion in his family law proceedings to compel his former solicitor to deliver his complete file to his new lawyer.

The former solicitor resisted, claiming a solicitor's lien for unpaid fees.

The motion judge ordered the file to be turned over temporarily for copying.

The former solicitor appealed.

During the appeal hearing, the parties agreed to a variation of the order allowing the former solicitor to retain original signed documents and provide electronic copies of electronic records.

The Court of Appeal varied the order accordingly and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a former student at Carleton University and employee of The Source, sued Carleton and BCE Inc. for conspiracy, wrongful termination, and various torts after receiving a failing grade and being terminated from his employment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against BCE Inc. and struck the claims against Carleton as an abuse of process, finding they were an attempt to re-litigate an internal academic appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the claims against the university constituted an abuse of process.

The Court also dismissed motions to set aside previous orders refusing to strike the respondents' affidavits.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action under Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to pay outstanding costs awards.

The appellant argued that some costs were discharged by a previous order, raised historical grievances, and alleged bias against the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these arguments, noting the motion judge applied the correct test and appropriately exercised his discretion given the appellant offered no reason for non-payment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the summary judgment dismissal of her motion to change a consent final order that terminated spousal support.

She argued the motions judge erred in ruling third-party letters inadmissible, placing the onus on her to adduce expert evidence, finding the claim statute-barred under s. 17(10) of the Divorce Act, and failing to accord procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the medical evidence was admitted, it did not establish that the alleged worsening of her medical condition was related to the marriage as required by s. 17(10).

The self-represented appellant appealed a final judgment in family law proceedings, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing her requests for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the trial judge confirmed the appellant was prepared to proceed at the outset and properly rejected a mid-trial adjournment request lacking medical documentation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence.

During the hearing, she withdrew her appeal against the conviction.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's admission of the appellant's confession or the finding of guilt.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge considered all relevant principles and circumstances, and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that allowed the respondent's appeal from a certification judge's refusal to certify a negligent misrepresentation claim as a class action.

The claim arose from a 'best efforts' statement in an information folder provided to investors in the appellant's investment fund.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a class action was the preferable procedure.

The Court held that the common issues of duty of care, falsity of the representation, and negligence would significantly advance the claims, and that the individual issues of reliance and damages could be managed within the class proceeding framework, thereby providing access to justice for claims that were not economically viable to litigate individually.

The appellant unions challenged the constitutionality of the federal Expenditure Restraint Act (ERA) and the Government's conduct in collective bargaining, arguing they infringed their members' freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The ERA imposed wage increase caps and rolled back previously negotiated increases in response to the 2008 global economic crisis.

The Court of Appeal held that the ERA and the Government's conduct did not substantially interfere with the collective bargaining process.

In the alternative, any limits on s. 2(d) rights were demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter given the pressing and substantial objective of managing the economic crisis.

The court also upheld the application judge's decision to admit and prefer the evidence of the Government's participant expert over the unions' expert.

The successful respondent on an appeal sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $93,000 for the action, various motions, and the appeal, in addition to the $75,000 already awarded for the summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, noting that both sides had unnecessarily complicated a simple collection case.

The court reduced the requested costs to $64,500 and then applied a further reduction for overall disproportionality, ultimately awarding the respondent $44,500 in costs.

The appellant and her boyfriend were charged jointly with importing cocaine after returning from St. Lucia with drugs hidden in their luggage.

The boyfriend pled guilty to importing the cocaine found in his bag.

At trial, the appellant claimed she was a blind courier set up by her boyfriend, and sought to introduce evidence of his guilty plea and its underlying facts.

The trial judge excluded the evidence as hearsay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that while the facts underlying the plea were inadmissible hearsay, the fact of the guilty plea itself, as recorded on the indictment, was admissible under the public documents exception and necessary for the appellant to make full answer and defence.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage.

The trial judge granted the respondent a 50 per cent beneficial interest in the matrimonial home on a resulting trust and dismissed the appellant's claims for unequal division of net family property and retroactive support.

The appellant appealed, seeking an interest in the respondent's RRSP and retroactive support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not pleaded the RRSP trust claim at trial and that the trial judge made no errors in denying retroactive support based on the parties' conduct and circumstances.

The appellant, Onyx Corporation, appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully terminated an oral subcontract with the respondent, S & J Gareri Trucking Ltd., for snow removal services.

The trial judge found the oral subcontract was for a five-season term, mirroring the appellant's main contract with the municipality, rather than a season-by-season term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct principles for interpreting oral contracts and made no error in assessing damages based on expected revenues less mitigation.

The appellant, counsel for the plaintiff in an underlying action, appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to personally pay $84,000 in costs on a joint and several basis with his client under Rule 57.07.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate notice of the grounds for the costs order and that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause by commencing an abusive action and taking unreasonable procedural steps, such as insisting on a jurisdiction motion proceeding alongside a motion to strike.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that they had no interest in certain mining claims under an Option Agreement.

The appellants argued the agreement was an outright sale, while the respondent argued it was an option agreement requiring the appellants to fund development to earn their interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation, finding that the agreement was an option and that legal title reverted to the respondent because the appellants failed to fulfill their funding obligations.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for increased retroactive and prospective spousal support, arguing the motion judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding post-separation income increases and her medical inability to work full-time.

The respondent cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to award him costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons, while brief, were sufficient for appellate review and that there was no error in principle or material misapprehension of evidence in denying the support increase or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs.

The appellants appealed an order declaring a family trust invalid and vesting its assets in the respondent Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals, and the alleged trustee of the trust brought a cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal found significant irregularities regarding the notice provided for the original hearing, noting that the hearing proceeded in the absence of the undischarged bankrupt and any representative of the trust.

The court set aside the original order and remitted the matter for a new hearing in the Superior Court of Justice to ensure procedural fairness.