Cara Davies

The appellant developer sought a declaration that a COVID-19 emergency regulation extending limitation periods also extended the 36-month deadline in a City of Toronto by-law for submitting a building permit application after receiving a demolition permit, which would have entitled the appellant to a development charge reduction of $6.7 million.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the by-law deadline was not a limitation period within the meaning of the regulation.

The Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.

The moving parties sought a panel review of a motion judge's order requiring them to pay $19,365.37 in costs for their abandoned appeal.

They argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment to cross-examine the respondent's affiant and by fixing an unreasonable amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no error in principle or unreasonable result in the motion judge's discretionary decisions regarding cross-examination and costs.

The plaintiff moved to set aside an October 31, 2024 registrar's order dismissing her action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action was commenced in June 2018 and had not been set down for trial within the five-year deadline.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the test for setting aside the dismissal order, having provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, failed to move forthwith after the dismissal, and failed to establish that the defendants would not suffer prejudice.

The court noted the plaintiff's pattern of resistance to court directions, her deliberate delay in bringing the motion, and her conduct in attempting to circumvent proper procedure.

The motion was dismissed and the action remains dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike two Fresh as Amended Claims filed by the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff had purported to amend her claims on April 1, 2025, claiming consent from the defendants pursuant to Rule 26.02(b).

However, the defendants denied providing consent.

The court found that the plaintiff had misused prior consents from 2020 and 2021 that were unrelated to the 2025 amendments, constituting an abuse of process.

The court struck the Fresh as Amended Claims but granted limited leave to amend the original pleadings to include certain new relief provisions (Charter damages and mandatory orders) that did not introduce new facts beyond the limitation period.

The court also adjusted the schedule for pending summary judgment motions and awarded costs to the defendants.

This endorsement addresses a motion for costs brought by the Toronto Police Service Board following the abandonment of an appeal by Gary Curtis and Tanya Rebello.

The court found that the Board was entitled to costs, as its responding materials were served before the Notice of Abandonment was filed.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments regarding entitlement and quantum of costs, and awarded the Board $19,365.37, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to vary an order setting aside a dismissal of her action and to extend time, which also resulted in the dismissal of her action.

The court awarded costs to the City of Toronto and Toronto Transit Commission, with a 10% reduction due to the plaintiff's financial situation.

However, the court declined to award costs to the third party, Guild Electric Limited, on the basis that the plaintiff did not initiate the third-party claim.

The plaintiff's slip and fall action was dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court subsequently set aside the dismissal and imposed a mandatory timetable.

The plaintiff breached multiple steps of the timetable, including failing to deliver a sworn affidavit of documents, failing to answer undertakings, and failing to attend mandatory mediation.

The plaintiff moved to vary the set-aside order and extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The court applied the Reid and Jadid factors, finding the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, did not miss the deadlines through inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed, and the action was dismissed.

This application concerned an "orphan lane" in Toronto, a private laneway whose original 19th-century owners were deceased and whose heirs could not be located despite diligent efforts.

The applicant, a corporation formed to acquire the lane and owning all adjacent properties, sought an order under Rule 14.05(3)(e) to vest title of the lane in its name and extinguish any claims from the original owners or their successors.

The City of Toronto was served and did not oppose the application, confirming the lane was private.

The court granted the order, finding that the applicant was the only party with a well-founded claim and that vesting title in the applicant would ensure the lane's maintenance as part of the redevelopment of surrounding properties.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff’s pleading alleged harassment, discrimination, false accusations, and other misconduct by police but did not specify dates, incidents, or material facts capable of supporting a recognized cause of action.

The court held that the pleading failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and did not comply with the basic rules of pleading requiring material facts and a clear statement of relief.

The court further found the claim frivolous and vexatious because it contained only vague allegations without factual foundation.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under rules 21.01 and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

The plaintiff, self‑represented, alleged disturbance, harassment, discrimination, and false ticket accusations by police but pleaded no dates, specific incidents, or material facts capable of supporting a recognized cause of action.

The court held that the pleading failed to meet the minimum requirements for a cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test for rule 21.01(1)(b) motions, the court concluded that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and failed to comply with pleading requirements.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.

The defendant police service brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under multiple provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and non-compliant with pleading rules.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged harassment, assault, false arrest, and discrimination but failed to plead dates of loss, material facts, or a clear cause of action.

The court held that while the allegations did not plainly disclose no cause of action, the pleading lacked the material facts required by rule 25.06 and made it impossible for the defendant to respond.

The statement of claim was therefore struck for deficient pleading but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under various provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The claim failed to plead any dates of loss, specific incidents, or material facts capable of supporting a recognized cause of action.

The court held that pleadings must at minimum set out the essential elements of a recognized cause of action and provide sufficient material facts to allow the opposing party to respond.

Finding a complete absence of material facts and non-compliance with Rule 25.06 pleading requirements, the court concluded the claim was plainly incapable of supporting a cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.