Calum U. C. MacLeod

This decision concerns an appeal under section 88.33(9) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, regarding the City of Ottawa Elections Compliance Audit Committee's refusal to order a compliance audit of a candidate's financial statement.

The court found that even a minor but substantive error in a candidate's Form 4 financial statement is sufficient to require an audit, and that the Committee erred in not ordering one.

The court ordered the Committee to appoint an auditor and clarified that the threshold for ordering an audit is low, focusing on transparency and accurate reporting rather than the magnitude of the error.

This decision concerns an application under the Partition Act regarding jointly owned property at 63 Hiscock Blvd., Scarborough, Ontario.

The applicant, Syed Azadar Bukhari, sought an order for sale of the property, which was opposed by the respondent, Nadia Muneeb Bukhari, on the basis of the applicant’s failure to contribute to carrying costs and alleged unjust enrichment.

The court reviewed the history of litigation between the parties, including prior judgments establishing joint ownership and financial obligations.

The court found that the applicant’s failure to pay could be remedied by adjustments on sale and did not amount to malicious or oppressive conduct.

The court ordered the sale of the property under supervision, with an accounting to determine amounts owing, and awarded costs to the applicant.

This costs decision follows the trial judgment in a motor vehicle insurance dispute.

The court addresses the adjustment of the judgment for a Pierringer Agreement, calculation of prejudgment interest, and the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court finds that the net damages to be paid by Economical are $13,008.86, with prejudgment interest of $1,292.14, and costs awarded on the Small Claims Court scale, totaling $7,909.26.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 49 offers, proportionality, and the policy behind limiting costs where the claim could have been brought in Small Claims Court.

This decision addresses interim parenting, decision-making, and the enforceability of a cohabitation agreement in a family law dispute.

The court declined to change the existing parenting schedule or grant unilateral health decision-making to the mother, instead ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court found the cohabitation agreement to be a valid domestic contract barring property and spousal support claims, subject to statutory exceptions under the Family Law Act.

The issue of the respondent’s earning capacity and unconscionability of the support waiver was left for trial.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Ercan Balpinar, brought an insurance claim against Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Highland Auto Body regarding inadequate repairs to a cargo van.

The vehicle was damaged in an accident, and Economical elected to repair it.

The plaintiff alleged the repairs were insufficient, particularly concerning frame damage, and sought further compensation, including for storage and a replacement vehicle, and punitive damages.

The court found that the initial repairs were inadequate and that a problem with the right front wheel, indicative of frame/suspension issues, was only corrected after a frame replacement years later.

The court awarded the plaintiff the cost of the frame replacement and towing charges, and limited storage and rental vehicle costs, but denied punitive damages, finding no bad faith on Economical's part.

The court emphasized the insurer's responsibility to ensure competent repairs when electing to repair a vehicle.

The defendant, facing impaired driving charges, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained by police.

The application alleged unreasonable delay in administering a Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST) and an unlawful vehicle search, arguing breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(c) of the Charter.

The court found that the delay in administering the SFST was reasonable due to a public safety distraction involving an irate third party.

While acknowledging an unlawful vehicle search occurred, the court determined that no evidence from that search was relevant to the impaired driving charges.

Consequently, the court denied the application to exclude the evidence, finding no Charter breach regarding the impaired driving investigation.

This motion concerned a personal injury action where the plaintiff entered into a "Pierrenger Agreement" with one defendant (Artistic Landscape Designs Limited), settling the claim against them.

The plaintiff sought to amend the statement of claim to remove the settling defendant and limit the claim against the non-settling defendant (Suzan Fergus) to her direct and several share of liability.

The non-settling defendant initially resisted, seeking clarity on the implications for cross-claims and apportionment of fault.

The court granted the motion to amend the claim and dismiss both cross-claims, clarifying that the trial judge must still apportion fault among all original parties.

The plaintiff's request for costs against the non-settling defendant was denied, as the defendant's initial resistance was deemed reasonable.

This decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff to amend a claim, originally a proposed class proceeding arising from the Westboro bus crash, to continue as an individual action.

The City of Ottawa brought a cross-motion to refuse the amendment and declare four new individual actions statute-barred.

The core issue was whether the proposed individual claims constituted new causes of action or were supported by facts pleaded in the original statement of claim, thus protected by the limitation period suspension under the Class Proceedings Act.

The court found that the original pleading contained sufficient material facts to support claims of operator negligence and vicarious liability, in addition to direct and systemic negligence.

Consequently, these claims were protected from the running of the limitation period by s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff's motion to amend was granted, and the individual claims were allowed to proceed.

This is an appeal of a decision by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills regarding building permit fees and development charges.

The Applicant, 2755249 Ontario Inc., sought permits for the conversion and renovation of a former seniors' residence into apartments.

The CBO assessed the units as new construction, leading to higher fees, and subsequently failed to issue a permit for Phase II of the project.

The court found the CBO's decision to categorize the renovation and expansion of existing units as new construction to be unreasonable and incorrect.

The appeal was granted, the CBO's decision was set aside, and specific fee amounts were ordered for both Phase I and Phase II, with a building permit to be issued upon payment.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a proposed class proceeding for delay pursuant to section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

They argued that the plaintiff had not filed a complete certification motion record or established a timetable within the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

The plaintiff contended that extensive interlocutory proceedings related to a Mareva injunction, including timetables for affidavit exchange and cross-examinations, constituted "steps required to advance the proceeding." The court adopted a functional interpretation of section 29.1, finding that the injunction-related steps, which involved a deep dive into the merits and evidence relevant to certification, did indeed advance the proceeding.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

The court issued supplementary reasons to its trial decision, addressing unresolved calculations for spousal support and costs.

The applicant sought to reduce spousal support based on changes in child care arrangements and the respondent's increased investment income, arguing for a re-evaluation of Net Disposable Income (NDI).

The court clarified that NDI calculations are a tool, not a fixed target, and that the goal is roughly equivalent living standards.

Spousal support was fixed at $1,400 per month, a figure at the lower end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the change in parenting.

The court also provided directions for finalizing the judgment and resolving costs.

This decision concerns the costs arising from an unsuccessful application brought by Seabrook Bros.

Mechanical Ltd. to challenge a proposal trustee's valuation of security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The proposal trustee, Doyle Salewski Inc., sought $5,000 in costs, which was granted.

The debtor, North House Foods Ltd., sought partial indemnity costs of $23,413.72.

The court reduced North House Foods' costs to $8,000, citing their failure to deliver a Costs Outline (Form 57B) in advance as required by Rule 57.01(6) and proportionality concerns, noting that the proposal trustee's arguments were largely persuasive in the underlying application.

This decision fixed the costs payable following a summary trial where the plaintiff was found not to be a shareholder.

The defendants, as the successful parties at trial, were presumptively entitled to costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $180,000 to the defendants, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court declined to set off these costs against any amounts potentially due to the plaintiff on a future reference but suspended enforcement of the costs award for 60 days to allow for potential settlement negotiations.

The decision considered factors such as the complexity of issues, the conduct of both parties regarding disclosure, and proportionality, noting that a "flat 5% disbursement fee" is not recoverable as party-and-party costs.

The moving party, Seabrook Bros.

Mechanical Ltd., applied under s. 50.1(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to revise the Proposal Trustee's $0 valuation of its construction lien security against North House Foods Ltd.'s leasehold interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Seabrook failed to demonstrate that the security had any realizable value on a forced sale, despite expert reports suggesting value to the debtor.

The court emphasized that the valuation was not about the debt itself, but the enforceability and net recovery from the collateral, considering impediments like lease assignment restrictions and the theoretical nature of realizing on such security in a proposal context.

The applicant, Cisco Systems Inc., sought to enforce a Letter Rogatory from a U.S. District Court against N. Harris Computer Corporation, a non-party in the U.S. patent litigation, to obtain documents and depositions.

Harris resisted the order, arguing it was burdensome and unnecessary, and that the evidence could be obtained from a party to the U.S. litigation (Video Solutions).

The court declined to enforce the order at this time, finding it premature, but ordered Harris to preserve legacy records and allowed Cisco to renew the application with further evidence after certain steps are taken in the U.S. litigation.

The applicant, a not-for-profit housing corporation, sought a writ of possession for a second unit temporarily provided to the respondent, a tenant with a disability, under an interim agreement.

The respondent refused to vacate, arguing continued occupation was necessary to accommodate her disability due to issues with her primary unit.

The court found it had jurisdiction, that the temporary unit was not a tenancy, and that the duty to accommodate did not require the applicant to provide a second unit indefinitely, especially given the undue hardship to a not-for-profit housing provider.

The court granted the writ of possession, deferred for 30 days, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

This was a refusals motion brought by the plaintiff within a larger motion by the defendants to amend their statement of defence and potentially withdraw an admission in a bad faith action.

The plaintiff sought production of a letter from counsel relied upon by a witness for factual assertions in an affidavit, and an answer regarding communications with a companion bad faith action.

The court granted the refusals motion, ordering the production of the letter (with redactions for privileged portions, noting waiver of privilege for facts relied upon) and the answer to the question, finding them relevant to the main motion.

The plaintiff, Chase Wong, brought an application, converted to a summary trial, seeking a 50% ownership interest in the defendant corporation, 10658987 Canada Inc., and oppression remedies under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found no binding agreement for the plaintiff to become a 50% owner, as discussions were ongoing and conditional.

While the plaintiff contributed capital and services, the court determined he did not have a reasonable expectation of ownership sufficient to grant an oppression remedy for shares.

Instead, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of his investment and reimbursement for services provided, with an accounting to quantify these amounts.

An application was brought to validate a will that failed to meet formal execution requirements under the Succession Law Reform Act, as the subscribing witnesses were not actually present.

The court applied section 21.1 of the Act, which allows for the validation of improperly executed documents if they set out the deceased's testamentary intentions.

Despite the applicant, a beneficiary, having effectively witnessed the will, the court found no evidence of undue influence, and all other beneficiaries consented or did not oppose the validation.

The court declared the will valid and ordered costs to be paid from the estate.