Alex Redinger

The appellant, a former mayoral candidate, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his application challenging the validity of the Toronto mayoral election.

The original application, brought under the Municipal Elections Act, alleged issues with media coverage, polling, and exclusion from mayoral debates.

The motion judge had dismissed the application as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding that even if the complaints were valid, they could not lead to a finding that the election was invalid.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.

The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of the City of Toronto, brought an application to invalidate the election results, alleging unfair media coverage and polling practices.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the Municipal Elections Act does not regulate media or pollsters, and the application lacked any legal basis.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant, who lost a municipal school trustee election by a single vote, sought a recount under s. 58 of the Municipal Elections Act.

The court distinguished between undervotes and overvotes/adjudicated ballots.

While dismissing the request for a recount of the 258 undervotes due to their common nature and lack of specific evidence of error, the court found objective grounds to doubt the result based on a single overvote and an unknown number of adjudicated mail-in ballots.

Consequently, a narrow recount was ordered for the overvote and adjudicated ballots to ensure fairness and avoid disenfranchising voters, given the extremely close margin.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action alleging conspiracy, fraud, and negligence against various defendants, including a law firm and the Ontario Provincial Police, arising from the transfer of a property following a power of sale.

The remaining defendants moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motions, finding that the pleadings lacked the heightened particularity required for allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and failed to establish any duty of care owed by the police or the law firm to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the claim against the police was a nullity due to the plaintiff's failure to provide the mandatory 60 days' written notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Leave to amend was denied as the fundamental defects could not be cured.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of complex, interrelated standard form agreements common in the road construction industry.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the application judge's interpretation of these contractual provisions, finding no error in the lower court's reasoning.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, Fermar Paving Limited, brought an application seeking a declaration that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) was not entitled to claim liquidated damages for a delay in a road resurfacing contract, or alternatively, that the claim was unenforceable for a specific period.

The applicant argued that the respondent caused a concurrent delay by issuing and then cancelling "Additional Work" (CO #13) and that a prior settlement of Claim #3 did not bar the current application.

The court found that the settlement of Claim #3 was ambiguous regarding Claim #2 and applied *contra proferentem* against the respondent, thus allowing the applicant to proceed.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the "Additional Work" (CO #13) was irrelevant to the delay in completing the Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS) work, which was the "Controlling Operation." The court concluded that the applicant alone caused the delay and failed to properly request an extension of time as per the contract, thus the respondent was entitled to charge liquidated damages.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their claims against the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG Respondents) and a libel claim against the Toronto Police Services Board (Police Respondents).

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis, upholding the dismissal.

The claims against the MAG Respondents failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, citing Crown attorney immunity from negligence and a lack of pleaded intent for torts like malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and conspiracy.

The libel claim against the Police Respondents was struck for non-compliance with notice requirements and limitation periods under the Libel and Slander Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the appellant Mohamed Abdullahi.

The applicants sought to quash subpoenas issued by the respondent, Laura Pinkerton, for her criminal trial on a charge of forcible entry.

Pinkerton intended to call witnesses to support her claim of entitlement to the property, arguing a long-standing conspiracy to divest her of it.

The court found that a person's entitlement to property is immaterial to a forcible entry charge under Section 72(1.1) of the Criminal Code, which focuses on preserving public peace and actual peaceable possession.

Furthermore, the evidence sought would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on prior court orders establishing possession.

As the proposed witnesses could not provide material evidence, the Justice of the Peace exceeded jurisdiction in issuing the subpoenas.

The subpoenas were quashed.