B. G. MacDougall

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the application of biosolids on the defendants' adjacent farm caused noxious odours, seepage onto their property, and resulting illnesses and economic loss.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' strict liability claim under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, finding that spreading biosolids is not a non-natural use of land.

However, the court dismissed the defendants' summary judgment motions regarding the claims of trespass, negligence, and nuisance, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial based on evidence of potential pooling, seepage, and prolonged offensive odours.

The father sought costs following a bifurcated parenting trial where the court largely adopted the recommendations of a joint custody and access assessment.

The mother had initially sought sole custody but changed her position to shared custody during the trial.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and noted her counsel contributed to unnecessarily extending the trial.

The father was awarded $50,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements, plus the full cost of the expert's court attendance.

In a high-conflict custody dispute, the respondent mother brought an emergency motion seeking permission to relocate with the child to Alberta after previously relocating without the applicant father’s consent contrary to a consent order.

The father had sought joint custody and the child’s return to Ontario, and the court had earlier ordered the child returned pending further proceedings.

On the emergency motion, the court noted the father had not complied with previous court directions requiring evidence addressing substance abuse history, criminal record, and plans to re-establish a relationship with the child.

Given the incomplete evidentiary record, the court adjourned the relocation motion and imposed a strict deadline for the father to file the required materials.

An estate brought an application seeking an order dispensing with service on a missing co-owner and a vesting order declaring the estate the legal and beneficial owner of a property.

The property had been purchased decades earlier by the deceased and the respondent as joint tenants, but the respondent had vacated the property and had not been heard from for over thirty years.

The deceased remained in exclusive possession of the property, paid all expenses, and treated the property as his own throughout that period.

Applying the principles of adverse possession and s. 11 of the Real Property Limitations Act, the court held that possession by one joint tenant can found a claim against another.

The court inferred the deceased’s intention to exclude the absent co-owner and granted a vesting order in favour of the estate.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in an action seeking specific performance of a purported oral commercial lease.

The court had previously determined that the matter could not be fairly resolved on summary judgment and directed that it proceed to an expedited trial.

In determining costs, the court considered that a significant portion of the defendants’ preparation and cross-examinations would benefit the upcoming trial and should not be fully compensated at this stage.

The court therefore limited the recoverable costs to reasonable amounts for the motion itself.

Specific costs were fixed for each group of defendants’ counsel, with limited disbursements allowed.

Following a successful Norwich application compelling disclosure of the identities of individuals who made allegedly malicious anonymous reports to a children’s aid society, the self‑represented applicant sought substantial costs against the society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The society argued that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that although the society could not legally consent to the disclosure order due to statutory confidentiality obligations, its strong opposition unnecessarily increased the effort required by the applicant.

Reasonable costs were therefore awarded against the society but not against the tribunal.

Following a successful summary judgment application dismissing claims against condominium owners in a wrongful death action, the moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The estate had alleged the owners owed duties as landlords or occupiers relating to a fatal fall from a balcony, but evidence established that the owners were not present and had no interaction with the deceased.

Prior to the hearing, the moving parties had delivered a formal offer to waive costs if the action was discontinued against them, which the estate declined.

The court held that the estate continued to pursue liability despite information indicating the owners were not involved in the events.

Taking into account the tragic circumstances of the death, the court fixed costs in a reduced amount rather than awarding substantial indemnity.

In a catastrophic personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a disabled municipal snowplow, the moving defendants sought leave under Rule 29.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a third party claim against the truck manufacturer, alleging a latent manufacturing defect caused a loss of electrical power that disabled hazard lights prior to the collision.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that adding a product liability claim would significantly delay trial and cause severe financial prejudice due to ongoing care costs.

The court held that leave to issue a third party claim must be granted absent undue prejudice to the plaintiff and that delay alone does not suffice.

Considering the arguable manufacturing defect and the policy favouring resolution of all issues in one proceeding, the court found no undue prejudice.

Leave to issue the third party claim was granted despite the likely adjournment of trial.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death after failing to stop at a stop sign and colliding with a vehicle travelling on a through road.

The court found the actus reus established because driving through the stop sign created a significant risk to other road users.

However, applying the principles from Supreme Court of Canada authorities on dangerous driving, the court held that the evidence did not establish a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.

The evidence suggested either a momentary lapse of attention or a negligent misjudgment when performing a rolling stop.

Such conduct, while careless and potentially giving rise to civil liability or provincial offences, did not meet the criminal threshold for dangerous driving.

An employee alleged constructive dismissal after his employer proposed moving him from a managerial role supervising staff into a newly created “Special Projects” position without management responsibilities.

The court held that the proposed change constituted a substantial unilateral alteration of a fundamental term of the employment contract because it removed supervisory authority and diminished status and prestige.

Evidence showed the employer had already decided to implement the change despite representing it as a discussion, confirming the employee’s perception that he had no real choice.

The court further held the employee was not required to mitigate by remaining in the altered position because it would have created humiliation and loss of dignity.

Damages were awarded based on a 12‑month notice period, partial bonus entitlements, compensation for stock option losses, and limited pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff municipality sought to recover environmental remediation costs following a residential furnace oil spill that migrated onto public lands and into a lake.

Several defendants, including an insurer, insurance adjuster, and environmental remediation contractor, brought summary judgment motions to dismiss statutory and negligence claims against them under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court held that none of the moving parties were “owners of the pollutant” or persons “having control of the pollutant” within the meaning of the statute and dismissed the statutory claims.

However, the court declined to summarily dismiss the negligence claims, finding that the potential duty of care owed by an insurer, adjuster, or remediation contractor to an adjoining landowner presented a novel question requiring a full Anns analysis at trial.

Amendments to the statement of claim were also permitted as they arose from the same factual matrix and did not introduce a new cause of action.