Ashleigh L. Tomlinson

The applicants sought leave to appeal a Master's decision reserving the costs of a motion to strike an affidavit to the judge hearing the underlying application.

The applicants argued they were largely successful on the motion to strike and should have been awarded costs.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the Master's conclusion that he could not determine which party was more successful without a qualitative analysis of the struck paragraphs, which was best left to the application judge.

A twin-engine aircraft lost power in its left engine during a flight from Ontario to Delaware and crashed in New York State, killing the two pilots and one passenger.

The pilots' estates sued the companies that inspected and maintained the engine and the engine manufacturer.

The manufacturer moved for summary judgment arguing that the United States General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 barred the claims because the aircraft was delivered more than 18 years prior to the accident.

The motion judge found that Ontario law applied because the crux of the claims involved negligent misrepresentation in repair instructions received and relied upon in Ontario.

The manufacturer appealed.

This is a costs decision following the quashing of a provincial offence charge against the defendant for failing to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar at the Oshawa Airport complex.

The court found that the constitutional doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applied, rendering the charge void ab initio.

The court subsequently determined that the City of Oshawa, as prosecutor, had displayed marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, warranting a costs award.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the prosecutor had acted in self-serving interests rather than the public interest, had failed to disclose relevant materials, had breached prosecutorial responsibilities by using settlement discussions against the defendant, and had proceeded despite clear jurisprudence establishing federal exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim ruling by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, which had deferred a decision on a motion to dismiss charges until the end of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court emphasized its reluctance to fragment administrative proceedings and noted that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own process and defer its decision until a full evidentiary record was available.

The defendant corporation was charged with failing to obtain a building permit for modifications to a hangar at Oshawa Airport, contrary to the Building Code Act, 1992.

The defendant raised a constitutional challenge based on federal exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The court found the Building Code Act provisions invalid as applied to the defendant's hangar and dismissed the charge.

Subsequently, the court awarded costs against the City of Oshawa as prosecutor, finding the prosecution exhibited flagrant departure from reasonable standards, including tunnel vision, witness bias, failure to disclose relevant documents, and refusal to accept established jurisprudence on federal aeronautics jurisdiction.

The defendants Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (CMI) moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims and cross-claims against them, arguing that a U.S. federal statute, the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), imposed an 18-year limitation period that had expired.

The motion was opposed by other defendants, Aviation Technical Consultants (ATC) and Corporate Aircraft Restorations Inc. (CAR), who had cross-claimed against CMI for negligent misrepresentation.

The court, applying Ontario's choice of law rules, determined that the tort of negligent misrepresentation occurred in Ontario where CMI's allegedly faulty instructions were received and relied upon.

Consequently, U.S. law, including GARA, did not apply to bar the claims, and CMI's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

A corporation charged with failing to obtain a building permit under the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 for modifications to an aircraft hangar at the Oshawa Airport successfully defended the charge on constitutional grounds.

The court found that the hangar, located within the airport complex and used for aviation purposes, falls within the exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applied, rendering the provincial building code requirement inapplicable to the federally regulated facility.

The court also dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application regarding trial delay, finding the delay, though significant, was within acceptable bounds given the complexity of the constitutional issues and societal interest in the matter.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim and sought a declaration that Nova Scotia law governed their Aircraft Management and Operating Agreement.

The court determined that Ontario law was the proper law of the agreement, applying principles of issue estoppel, rectification of mistake, bona fide choice of law, and public policy (attornment).

The motion to strike was granted in part: claims for regulatory complaint, inducing breach of contract against the corporate defendant, and oppression remedy were struck without leave to amend.

Claims for unlawful means and charter revenue were struck with leave to amend.

The request to strike the declaratory relief regarding a possessory lien was dismissed.