Aimee Collier

The Regional Municipality of York (the "Region") brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim of 2149629 Ontario Inc. ("214"). 214 sought damages for negligence and breach of contract, alleging that the Region's actions caused it to miss a deadline for registering a plan of subdivision, thereby incurring higher development charges.

The court found that 214 knew or ought to have known about the dewatering condition required for registration.

The court determined that the Region was not negligent, there was no principal/agency relationship between the Region and the Township of King, and the Region did not breach its contractual duty of good faith.

Furthermore, the court denied relief from forfeiture, concluding that 214 was not penalized but rather failed to receive a benefit by not meeting the agreement's conditions.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and 214's claim was dismissed.

The defendant credit union brought a motion to transfer a civil action from Brampton to the Commercial List in Toronto.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer, asserting prejudice arising from medical limitations and arguing that the underlying events occurred in the Region of Peel.

Applying the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the dispute was closely connected to prior receivership proceedings involving the corporate defendant that had been extensively managed on the Commercial List in Toronto.

The court also found no persuasive medical evidence establishing that the plaintiff could not travel to Toronto to litigate the matter.

Considering the location of relevant events, witnesses, subject matter, and the benefits of specialized case management, the court concluded that Toronto was a significantly better venue.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion for an interlocutory mandatory order requiring the defendants to remove a berm constructed on their property adjacent to a municipal road.

The municipality argued the berm caused flooding in the road's drainage ditches, creating safety hazards and potential damage to the pavement structure, and blocked water flow to a provincially significant wetland.

The defendants claimed the flooding was caused by the municipality's own ditch maintenance work.

The court preferred the municipality's expert evidence, finding the berm caused the flooding and was located within the wetland setback in breach of conservation regulations.

The court held that the municipal ditch formed part of the 'highway' under the Municipal Act, 2001, and granted a statutory injunction and an injunction for public nuisance, ordering the defendants to remove the berm.