Blake Terrence Bochinski

The appellants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a commercial tent and trailer park.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in private discussions and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to submit a final Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her anti-SLAPP motion regarding a $2.5 million defamation counterclaim brought by her former employer.

The motion judge had found the counterclaim had the hallmarks of a SLAPP and there was no evidence of a causal link between the appellant's expression and the respondents' alleged harm, but allowed the counterclaim to proceed because dismissing it would not meaningfully reduce the scope of the factual inquiry at trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Supreme Court's decision in Hansman, the weighing exercise must be tethered to the statutory text, which requires evidence of likely harm and causation.

The overlap between the claim and counterclaim was an impermissible consideration.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and the appellant was awarded $5,000 in statutory damages and costs.

This motion concerned the disclosure of documents from a solicitor's file related to an estate, with the defendants claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The plaintiff sought disclosure or court inspection to determine the validity of the privilege claims.

The court ordered certain documents to be produced for judicial inspection, specifically those where the claim for privilege was dubious or where the parties' interests might not have been adverse at the time of creation.

However, the court upheld the privilege claims for other documents, finding that the parties were clearly adverse in interest when those communications were made, thus dismissing the balance of the plaintiff's motion for those documents.

This application arose from the respondents' failure to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The applicants sought a declaration that their $15,000 deposit be forfeited and substantial damages.

The respondents admitted breach and entitlement to the deposit but disputed the scope and quantum of damages, arguing the issues should proceed to trial rather than be resolved on application.

The court declared the deposit forfeited to the applicants as a credit towards damages but ordered that the remaining issues concerning the scope and quantum of damages, including mitigation, be converted into an action and proceed to trial, finding material facts in dispute.

The defendants were successful in setting aside an ex-parte Mareva injunction after their marital situation changed, eliminating the risk of them fleeing the jurisdiction.

The defendants sought costs as the successful party, while the plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded due to the defendants' conduct complicating the litigation.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the defendants unnecessarily complicated the matter by litigating the sale of the matrimonial home.

Furthermore, the injunction was set aside due to changed circumstances, not any failure by the plaintiff.

The court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.