4 total
Leave to appeal denied; plaintiff failed to establish reasonable apprehension of bias or general importance.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision setting aside a default judgment, arguing there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to a reasonable apprehension of bias by the motion judge.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the bias claim and noting the issue was not raised before the motion judge.
Furthermore, the court held that setting aside the default judgment did not raise an issue of general public importance as required for leave to appeal.
The court accepted a joint submission and imposed an 18-month conditional sentence for a $60,000 employee fraud.
The defendant was sentenced for fraud over $5,000 committed against his employer over a three-year period.
The defendant, who was in charge of purchasing supplies, used company money to purchase compressor oil from a non-arm's length company, creating fraudulent invoices for non-existent supplies.
The defendant had paid $60,000 in full restitution and entered a guilty plea.
Despite initial joint submission for an 18-month conditional sentence, the Crown expressed concerns after reviewing the Pre-Sentence Report, particularly regarding the defendant's failure to disclose the conviction to his current employer and his lack of genuine remorse.
The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including electronic supervision for the first nine months, house arrest, and subsequent probation with restrictions on handling money.
Tax apportionment application dismissed as municipality failed to provide mandatory statement of relative value.
The applicant municipality sought to apportion unpaid property taxes among 144 condominium units based on calculations provided by the respondent developer, rather than using a statement of relative value from the assessment corporation.
The Board held that under section 356 of the Municipal Act, it must first determine that an apportionment based on relative value is not appropriate due to special circumstances before it can apportion taxes in any other manner.
Because no statement of relative value was provided in evidence, the Board could not make this threshold determination.
The application was dismissed.
Board refuses to apportion developer's unpaid taxes to innocent homeowners due to special circumstances.
The City of Toronto applied to apportion unpaid 1998 and 1999 commercial taxes owed by a property developer among 18 current residential homeowners and two vacant lots in a townhouse development.
The homeowners objected, arguing they were innocent purchasers and the City had failed to adequately pursue the developer for the debt.
The Assessment Review Board found that special circumstances existed, including the retroactive effect of Regulation 399/03 and the City's inadequate collection efforts during amalgamation.
The Board concluded it was not appropriate to apportion the taxes to the innocent homeowners and instead apportioned the entire tax debt to the two vacant lots still owned by the developer.
