Al Burton

The applicant conservation authority sought an interim injunction to stop the respondents from excavating peat and depositing fill on their property, which is located within a provincially significant wetland.

The respondents had been carrying out these activities without the required permits under the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 179/06.

The court found that the respondents were in flagrant breach of the regulation and that their activities were causing irreparable harm to the wetland.

The court granted the interim injunction, prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the wetland without prior written approval.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the Town of Georgina to approve a fill application and issue a permit.

The court reviewed the requirements for mandamus and the parties' positions on the standard of review and municipal discretion.

Ultimately, the court raised a jurisdictional issue, noting that under section 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, applications for relief in the nature of mandamus must generally be brought in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the parties 60 days to make submissions on jurisdiction, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicants were wholly successful in their application for mandatory orders requiring the demolition of structures built without building permits, and in dismissing the respondents' counter-application.

The court determined costs by written submissions.

The respondents argued the costs sought were excessive and that the applicants had over-lawyered the matter.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the time spent and rates charged by the applicants' senior counsel to be fair, reasonable, and proportional.

The court awarded the applicants their requested partial indemnity costs of $25,643.68, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Municipality of Dysart and its Chief Building Official brought an application for a mandatory order requiring the respondents to demolish several structures built without building permits, and an injunction restraining the use of a logging museum for concerts without a change of use permit.

The respondents brought a counter-application seeking an order directing the issuance of a building permit for the museum addition and a declaration that permits were not required for other structures.

The court dismissed the respondents' counter-application, finding they failed to appeal the Chief Building Official's decision within the statutory timeframe and that the official correctly interpreted the Building Code regarding change of use.

The court granted the municipality's application, ordering the demolition of the unpermitted structures and issuing an injunction against holding concerts at the museum.

The court considered whether an interim injunctive order granted during an adjournment of an application remained in effect after the application did not proceed on the scheduled return date.

The applicant had obtained an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations on affidavit evidence but failed to conduct the cross-examination and failed to file the necessary confirmation for the rescheduled hearing.

The court held that the interim injunction was granted on strict terms tied to the adjournment and anticipated cross-examination.

Because those conditions were not fulfilled and the application did not proceed, the basis for the interim relief no longer existed.

The court confirmed that the interim injunction expired on the scheduled return date but allowed the applicant to seek further interim relief in a future appearance.

Following a costs endorsement, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing pre-judgment interest and security for costs.

The court found no special circumstances to depart from the statutory pre-judgment interest rate of 4.5 percent.

Additionally, the court ordered the return of the $10,725 security for costs, plus any interest, to the plaintiffs.

Homeowners sued a property management company for breach of contract and negligence after tenants placed by the manager operated a methamphetamine lab that caused an explosion and rendered the property uninhabitable.

The court found the manager misrepresented that the management contract was identical to a sample contract, which altered a liability clause from negligence to gross negligence.

Applying principles from cases including Tilden Rent-A-Car v. Clendenning and Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., the court held the defendant was estopped from relying on the altered limitation clause.

The manager breached its contractual obligations and the standard of care by failing to conduct promised tenant screening, failing to disclose deficiencies in the screening process, and failing to pursue eviction when arrears and warning signs emerged.

These failures caused the plaintiffs’ loss.