25 total
Motions to consolidate four environmental remediation actions and strike claims for indemnity and nuisance dismissed.
ERM brought motions to consolidate four related actions arising from environmental contamination and a remediation agreement, and to strike the property owners' claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance.
The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the actions should be tried together to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to separate counsel and to prevent circumvention of limitation periods.
The court also dismissed the motions to strike, holding that the claims for contribution and indemnity were not premature given ongoing Ministry of the Environment involvement, and that it was not plain and obvious the nuisance claims would fail.
Judicial review dismissed; Ontario Racing Commission has jurisdiction to redistribute purse monies despite existing contracts.
The Ontario Harness Horse Association sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission to redistribute purse monies among racetracks.
The Commission had adopted a Framework to move purse funds from racetracks with profitable slot machine operations to those with more active wagering to re-invigorate horse racing.
The applicant argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction, claiming it conflicted with federal pari-mutuel regulations and interfered with existing contractual rights.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission had broad regulatory authority under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, that its actions did not conflict with federal regulations, and that its regulatory powers permitted incidental interference with existing contracts.
Appeal on merits dismissed due to collateral attack; costs award reduced to partial indemnity.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for declaratory relief under the Charter and the award of substantial indemnity costs against him.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, agreeing with the application judge that the doctrine of collateral attack was a complete answer to the application.
However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award and allowed that portion of the appeal, finding no basis for substantial indemnity costs.
The costs award was reduced to partial indemnity, and the respondents were awarded $5,000 in costs for the appeal.
Costs of four appeals awarded on a partial indemnity scale on consent of the parties.
Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.
Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.
The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.
Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction over damages claims against the federal Crown involving administrative decisions.
Four appeals were heard consecutively to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims for damages against the federal Crown, or whether such claims must be brought in the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.
The Crown argued that the claims constituted collateral attacks on federal administrative decisions and required prior judicial review in the Federal Court.
The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages in contract and tort against the Crown.
Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court only for prerogative remedies and declaratory relief, not for damages.
The plaintiffs' appeals were allowed and the Crown's appeals were dismissed.