C. Harris

The decision concerns a motion to strike brought by the City of Kenora and individual defendants against 5901058 Manitoba Ltd.'s action regarding a failed land development transaction.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, constructive taking, and misfeasance in public office after the City refused to sell municipal land as agreed, instead pursuing a sale to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The court dismissed most grounds for striking, allowing the plaintiff’s claims (except for misfeasance in public office) to proceed, finding they disclosed reasonable causes of action.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record, arguing that counsel was a material witness to the negotiations underlying the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court applied the Essa factors and found that the defendant failed to establish that counsel would likely be called as a witness or that his evidence was necessary.

The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of solicitor-client privileged communications.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party, 1450638 Ontario Inc., brought a refusals motion arising from cross-examinations in an expropriation application.

Metrolinx had expropriated the moving party's property and offered $1.00 in compensation based on alleged environmental contamination, despite an initial appraisal of $2.1 million.

The court ordered Metrolinx to answer questions regarding its communications with the appraiser and to produce draft appraisal reports, finding that the dominant purpose of the appraisal was to satisfy statutory obligations under the Expropriations Act, not litigation.

The court also ordered production of Metrolinx's expropriation policies but dismissed requests for information regarding other unrelated expropriations.

This endorsement addresses a costs dispute following the settlement of a motion brought by Dufferin Wind Power Inc. (DWP) to compel examinations in aid of execution and amend writs.

The Debtors (Farshad and Fari Davoodian) had failed to attend two scheduled examinations.

Despite the motion being settled on all other issues, the Master found exceptional circumstances to award costs, primarily due to the Debtors' conduct which unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

DWP sought $8,588.47, and the Debtors sought $6,072.34.

The Master awarded DWP $4,000 in costs, payable by the Debtors.

The applicant, a land developer, sought an order under the Partition Act for the sale of a co-owned 8.5-acre undeveloped property in Stoney Creek, which it held as tenants in common with the respondents.

The respondents, retired spouses, opposed the sale, preferring to retain their half-interest for recreational farming and proposing a partition of the property.

The court dismissed the respondents' proposed partition, finding it legally untenable as it would violate subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court also denied the respondents' request for a stay or adjournment to seek municipal consent for partition, citing lack of diligence and uncertain prospects of success.

Finding no malice, oppression, or vexatious intent by the applicant, the court ordered the property to be sold at fair market value and awarded costs to the applicant.