Robert A. Blair

The appellant appealed an order setting ongoing spousal support at $600 per month and applying that amount against arrears.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons were so conclusory that appellate review was impossible.

The order was set aside and the matter remitted to be heard by a different judge.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly stated the applicable principles and reasonably concluded that the delay was inordinate, raising a presumption of prejudice.

As the appellants provided no evidence to explain the delay, the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice in a bankruptcy matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the result followed the disposition of a companion action appeal (C43482) which had also been dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly weighed all relevant factors, including rehabilitation, and appropriately emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The court concluded there was no error in principle and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant brought a motion for declaratory orders and appealed an order dismissing a motion to compel the respondent insurer to defend him in certain actions and for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding it cannot grant declaratory orders on issues not previously decided by a lower court.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition, noting it responded to the alternative section requested by the appellant and was supported by the evidence.

Although the appellant refused to cooperate with some conditions, he had been an exemplary patient in the hospital setting.

The appeal was dismissed, with the expectation that the Board would consider all relevant dispositions at the next annual review.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed his discharge at a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reviewing judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded their jurisdiction by weighing the defence of 'reasonable excuse', which falls outside the essential elements of the offence.

The appeal was dismissed, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge crafted a fit sentence at the time, compelling fresh evidence made it not in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the appellant.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years of probation.

The appellant appealed her sentence for fraud over $1,000.

The trial judge had rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence, noting the appellant reoffended while on probation, the length of time over which the offence occurred, the amount involved, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

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

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a medium secure unit following a finding of not criminally responsible for public mischief.

The appellant argued he had been detained too long for a minor offence and that the Board failed to adequately consider the least onerous and least intrusive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory cap on detention relied upon by the appellant was not in force, and that the Board's reasons, read as a whole, demonstrated adequate consideration of the requirement to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant sought to vary the remaining 3.5 months of his conditional sentence to allow him to leave house arrest two days a week for business purposes.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and allowed the appeal, varying the sentence to permit the appellant to leave his residence on Mondays and Thursdays in the company of his spouse to examine job sites.

The appellant pleaded guilty to six criminal offences and was sentenced to 75 days, reduced by five days for an alleged Charter breach related to a delayed bail hearing.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing the five-day reduction was insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion.

The 70-year-old appellant, a career criminal, pleaded guilty to robbery after threatening bank staff with a fake bomb.

The trial judge imposed a life sentence primarily to give the parole board flexibility in managing his release.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by imposing a maximum sentence without considering a fixed penitentiary term that would achieve the same goals of specific deterrence and public protection.

The appeal was allowed, and the life sentence was substituted with a 16-year term with parole eligibility delayed for seven years.

The appellants, private couriers providing outbound international mail services, appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting s. 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

The motion judge held that Canada Post's exclusive privilege of 'collecting, transmitting and delivering letters' applies to any one or more of those activities within Canada, including for letters destined abroad.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the French version of the statute clearly granted an exclusive privilege for each activity independently.

The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the activities constituted a single indivisible process, noting that such an interpretation would conflict with other provisions of the Act.

The appellant appealed an order allowing two limited partners to vote on the election of a new general partner for a limited partnership.

The appellant argued the limited partners were affiliated with and not dealing at arms length with the manager, and thus disqualified from voting under the partnership agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that there was no direct or indirect control establishing affiliation, and that the parties were dealing at arms length.

The appellant appealed his convictions for choking, assault causing bodily harm, uttering a death threat, forcible confinement, and sexual assault, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the complainant's delayed disclosure of the sexual assaults, the Crown's failure to call the complainant's daughter as a witness, and the rejection of his Corbett application.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the jury instructions, noting that the trial judge properly warned against stereotypical assumptions regarding delayed disclosure.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal the sentence was denied.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

On consent of both the Crown and the appellant, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and varied the sentence to time served plus a 15-month period of probation.

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 appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) entered by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant and his counsel were fully aware that an NCR hearing was being conducted, which could result in hospital confinement.

As no request was made for an adjournment to retain a defence psychiatrist, and there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's disposition on the merits, the appeal was dismissed.

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.