Alan G. McConnell

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction for rental arrears, arguing he was the beneficial owner of the property rather than a tenant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's conclusion that a landlord and tenant relationship existed.

The court held that the Board's findings were rationally supported by the evidence, including text messages acknowledging the obligation to pay rent, and that the Board properly ascertained the true substance of the transaction.

The appellant tenant sought to schedule his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears.

The respondent landlord sought to dismiss the appeal for delay and argued the appeal was frivolous.

The court found the delay was largely due to administrative issues at the Board and the Court.

However, to prevent abuse of process and maintain the stay of eviction pending the appeal, the court ordered the appellant to pay $5,000 in ongoing monthly rent, plus an additional $5,000 per month towards arrears accrued during the delay.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) review decision that ordered his eviction as an unauthorized occupant.

The Divisional Court found that the LTB member breached the duty of procedural fairness by conducting a de novo hearing without first determining the threshold issue of whether the initial decision contained a serious error.

The court also held that the member unfairly denied the appellant the right to cross-examine the landlord regarding alleged renovation contracts, which was a central issue in the member's reasoning.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the LTB for a new review hearing.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action concerning a helicopter acquisition and operation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the initial agreements (Letter of Intent and July Letter Agreement) lacked sufficient material terms to constitute enforceable contracts for the "Buy-in Claim" particularly given the absence of a "definitive agreement" for co-ownership.

The court also dismissed other breach of contract claims (Aircraft Management Agreement and Internal Cost Claims) because the appellants failed to adduce evidence particularizing or supporting damages on the summary judgment motion.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit and their summary judgment motion was unreasonable.

The court rejected the request for elevated costs, finding that the plaintiffs' litigation conduct was not reprehensible and that pursuing a weak case does not warrant elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $290,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs purchased a helicopter and alleged they entered into a joint venture agreement with the defendants for its operation, based on four documents including a Letter of Intent.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the breach of contract claim, arguing the documents were merely an 'agreement to agree'.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents lacked essential terms and that an Aircraft Management Agreement signed by the parties contained an 'entire agreement' clause that explicitly cancelled all prior representations and agreements.

The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Pietro Castrillo brought a motion for leave to discontinue a proposed class proceeding against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and for an order dismissing his action, which had been settled for $90,000 to cover legal expenses.

The class action challenged WSIB's interpretation of Policy 18-05-05 regarding Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefit reductions for pre-existing conditions.

Following litigation, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the WSIB clarified its policy and initiated a review of past cases, effectively achieving the class action's primary objective.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding it appropriate given the WSIB's policy changes and the risks of continued litigation, and ordered the WSIB to pay $90,000 to Castrillo's counsel for legal costs incurred for the benefit of the proposed class.

A proposed class action brought by injured workers who were denied full non-economic loss benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act on the basis of asymptomatic pre-existing conditions.

The plaintiff alleged that the denials resulted from an internal policy illegally adopted to save money.

The action was pleaded in misfeasance in public office, bad faith, and negligence.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action, finding the claims fell within the privative clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the misfeasance in public office and negligence claims were properly pleaded and not plainly barred by the privative clause.

Bad faith was found not to be a free-standing cause of action but rather an element of misfeasance in public office.

The appellants, contractors and their employees, were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace accident during an expansion project at Pearson International Airport.

A justice of the peace quashed the charges, finding the appellants' work was integral to a core federal aeronautics undertaking and thus immune from provincial legislation.

The application judge granted certiorari and mandamus, setting aside the decision and directing a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' normal operations as going concerns were not integral to the federal undertaking, and the application of provincial workplace safety standards did not impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.