Anne Tardif

The defendants requisitioned an order to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the defendants, lawyers, and judges, and sought to relitigate matters already determined in prior proceedings.

The court found the action to be manifestly devoid of merit, consisting of scandalous attacks and an evident attempt to relitigate decided issues.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the appeal and the proceeding below.

The respondent disputed the amount claimed for disbursements, specifically the fees of the appellant's experts.

The Court of Appeal held that expert fees are subject to a reasonableness test and reduced the claimed disbursements, noting the experts were not called to testify and their fees were significantly higher than those of the respondent's experts.

The court awarded the appellant fixed costs for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The appellant contractor brought an action for breach of contract after the respondent condominium corporations exercised a contractual termination clause following months during which the respondents knowingly misled the appellant into believing the agreement would not be terminated.

The majority held that the duty of honest performance, as formulated in Bhasin v. Hrynew, precludes active deception and applies to the exercise of all contractual rights, including termination rights; the respondents breached that duty by failing to correct the false impression they had created, which was directly linked to performance of the contract.

A concurring minority agreed on liability but differed on the measure of damages, holding that the duty of honest performance vindicates the reliance interest rather than the expectation interest.

The dissent would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondents' conduct did not materially contribute to the appellant's mistaken belief and did not constitute the active dishonesty required for a breach of the duty of honest performance.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judge's award of damages was reinstated.

The plaintiff developer sued the defendant municipality for negligent misrepresentation regarding a rezoning application for a condominium project.

During the rezoning process, the municipality failed to inform the developer about a large, high-pressure water main located in an adjacent easement, mistakenly advising that it was a trunk sewer.

The developer relied on this information and proceeded with the purchase and development.

At the site plan approval stage, the municipality's engineers objected to the proposed underground parking garage due to the risks posed to the water main, forcing the developer to redesign the project and incur significant delays and costs.

The court found that the municipality owed a duty of care to the developer, breached that duty through negligent misrepresentations, and that the developer reasonably relied on those representations.

The court awarded the developer $4,496,384 in damages and pre-judgment interest.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs of $27,321.55.

The applicant argued for no costs or symbolic costs, asserting he acted as a public interest litigant regarding municipal workplace harassment obligations.

The court applied the criteria for public interest litigants and awarded the respondent symbolic costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicants sought a stay of orders issued by the respondent municipality under the Building Code Act regarding their heritage buildings, which were in an unsafe condition.

The applicants wanted to demolish the buildings without complying with the heritage permit conditions.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in preserving heritage buildings and ensuring safety.

The plaintiffs brought motions to correct errors regarding the identity of defendants and legal representation in a negligence action arising from a residential oil tank installation that allegedly caused a leak.

Due to mistaken assumptions about a business name, the statement of claim was served on a different individual who then retained counsel and filed a defence in the name of another defendant.

The court considered whether to strike the defence, add the correct party, and extend the time for service beyond the ordinary six‑month period.

Applying the principles governing extensions of time and misnomer, the court held that relief should be granted because the plaintiffs intended to sue the installer from the outset and no real prejudice to the affected defendant was demonstrated.

The defence filed without authority was withdrawn, the time for service was extended, and the additional defendant was added.