Christine G. Carter

Following the dismissal of the Township's application for an injunction and the granting of the respondents' cross-application for a fill permit, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs and disbursements including non-litigation expenses.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, excluded non-litigation expenses, and awarded the respondents $31,193.68 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Township of Clearview brought a motion for a stay pending appeal of an order requiring it to immediately issue a fill permit to the respondents.

The respondents had sought to build a noise and privacy berm on their property adjacent to an unregulated aerodrome.

The application judge had found the Township's requirement to verify obstacle limitation surfaces was ultra vires.

On the motion for a stay, the Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the appeal raised a serious question, the Township would suffer irreparable harm as the appeal would become moot if the permit issued, and the balance of convenience favoured the Township.

The motion for a stay was granted and the appeal expedited.

A township sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from depositing fill on their property without a permit under the municipal fill by-law.

The respondents brought a counterapplication seeking a declaration that the by-law was invalid, or alternatively that they had complied with the permit requirements and a fill permit should issue.

The court found the by-law valid but held that the township acted ultra vires by requiring the applicant to verify aviation safety standards that fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The court ordered the township to forthwith issue the fill permit and dismissed the township's injunction application.

The plaintiffs sought over $16 million in consequential economic losses following a natural gas explosion and fire in the laundry room of their apartment building.

They claimed the explosion caused high vacancy rates, prevented rent increases, and diminished the building's value upon its sale five years later.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the hypothetical losses were caused by the explosion rather than their own business decisions, such as a disruptive elevator modernization project.

The court assessed the actual diminution in value and economic loss at $156,631, which was fully offset by $162,457.81 already paid by the plaintiffs' insurer.

The court considered a motion by LLF Lawyers LLP to dismiss the action against them on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged that confidential information was disclosed by an LLF employee to her spouse, who then defamed the plaintiff.

The court found that the statement of claim, as supplemented by particulars, disclosed a cause of action in favour of Michael Kelsey against LLF Lawyers LLP, and dismissed the motion as against him.

The action by The House Consulting Group Inc. was dismissed for not pleading a lawyer-client relationship or disclosure of its confidential information.

This is a trial ruling excluding proposed expert opinion evidence from a forensic accountant (Ivor Gottschalk) on quantification of lost rental revenue after a 2010 explosion and fire.

The court held the evidence failed the necessity requirement and the expert lacked independence and an investigative mindset; the gatekeeping cost-benefit analysis also favoured exclusion.

The ruling was made after a voir dire held Feb 19–20, 2025, and reasons were issued Feb 27, 2025.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action against the Township of Wainfleet for the destruction of a diseased apple orchard under the Weed Control Act.

They sought damages for negligence, misfeasance, trespass, and nuisance, and declarations that the Township's bylaw was passed in bad faith, not in the public interest, improperly targeted them, and was ultra vires.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the bylaw was valid, the Township followed proper procedures including public notice, and the appellants were not targeted.

The appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses three motions in a long-standing negligence action stemming from a 2010 explosion.

The Plaintiffs brought motions to strike the Defendants' pleadings for alleged non-disclosure of settlement agreements and for the recusal of the case management and trial judge due to a perceived apprehension of bias.

The Defendants brought a motion for directions concerning the scope of damage claims, specifically challenging a new "reinvestment claim" advanced by the Plaintiffs.

The court dismissed both of the Plaintiffs' motions, finding no change in the litigation landscape requiring disclosure of the agreements and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court granted the Defendants' motion for directions, ruling that the Plaintiffs' new reinvestment theory of damages was unpleaded, untimely, and would cause non-compensable prejudice to the Defendants.

The moving parties sought to review an order from a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed their motion for a stay of two interlocutory orders from a Superior Court case management judge.

The interlocutory orders had vacated pre-trial and trial dates and allowed a motion for directions.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed the review motion, finding no factual or legal errors by the motion judge, who correctly applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The panel also noted that the stay motion was moot as the vacated dates were long past and the disputed motions had already been heard and were under reserve.

The moving parties sought a stay of interlocutory orders made by a case management/trial judge, which had set aside a pre-trial date and vacated a trial date to allow a motion for directions to proceed.

The moving parties had previously been denied leave to appeal these orders by the Divisional Court and were now seeking leave to appeal that denial to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet any prong of the RJR-MacDonald test, particularly noting that their motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was unlikely to succeed as the Divisional Court had not mistakenly declined jurisdiction.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated October 3 and 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents jointly in the amount of $10,000.

This is an amended costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded costs of the appeal to the respondents Burns Hubley LLP, Paul Gribilas, and J+W Foods Inc., inclusive of disbursements and interest, payable by the appellants.

The appellants, William Fehr Sr. and Dorothey Fehr, appealed a lower court order that permanently stayed their professional negligence action against Paul Gribilas (lawyer) and Burns Hubley LLP (accounting firm) based on a "no-claims-over" provision in a mutual release.

The release settled previous disputes, including the Fehrs' purported interest in J+W Foods Inc. The professional negligence action alleged that Gribilas and Burns Hubley LLP failed to protect the Fehrs' shareholdings.

The motions judge found the action to be an abuse of process because it contravened the no-claims-over clause, which prevented claims against parties who might seek contribution from the releasees (J+W Foods Inc., William Fehr Jr., Steven Trougakos).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Fehrs' appeal, affirming that the motions judge had the inherent authority to stay the action as an abuse of process and that the defendants had a viable claim over, thereby triggering the no-claims-over provision.

The cross-appeal by Gribilas and Burns Hubley LLP was dismissed as moot.

Following the dismissal of an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the appellant's claim for costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed the appellant's costs on a partial indemnity scale in the inclusive sum of $15,000.

The moving party sought a stay of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal, pending its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The underlying case involved a claim for a constructive trust over funds allegedly obtained through fraud by the moving party's manager and used to purchase property owned by the responding party.

The motion judge applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the proposed appeal raised a serious question regarding the scope of constructive trusts, that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if the funds were released, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The motion for a stay was granted.

Sase Aggregate Ltd. appealed a lower court decision that largely dismissed its claims against Michelle Langdon, wife of a former pit manager who defrauded Sase of over $2.1 million.

Sase sought a constructive trust over the proceeds of sale of a property owned by Langdon, alleging knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment.

The application judge found Langdon had no knowledge of the fraud and that Sase failed to properly trace its funds into the property, except for an admitted amount of $177,632.38.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Sase's appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that Sase failed to establish the elements for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, or to properly trace the bulk of the funds into the property, and that Langdon's legitimate sources of funds were adequately explained.

The plaintiffs, Li Ma, Yumei Zhang, and Homeland Trading Ltd., brought an action against the Township of Wainfleet seeking general and punitive damages, and declarations that a municipal bylaw (Bylaw No. 028-2013) and a subsequent order to destroy their orchard were void.

The bylaw designated diseased fruit trees as "local weeds" under the Weed Control Act.

The plaintiffs alleged the bylaw was passed in bad faith, improperly targeted them, and violated their natural justice rights.

The court dismissed Homeland Trading Ltd.'s claim for lack of standing and failure to plead pecuniary loss.

For Li Ma and Yumei Zhang, the court found the bylaw valid, within the Township's statutory authority, and not passed in bad faith or targeting the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had ample notice and opportunity to appeal the order through the statutory appeal route, which they failed to utilize.

Consequently, all claims for damages and declarations were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to amend their statement of claim to advance personal claims for damages and increase the prayer for relief, stemming from an explosion in an apartment building they previously owned through a numbered company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The court found the motion to amend was brought too late, would cause presumed non-compensable prejudice to the defendants by materially altering the factual framework and requiring new evidence, and that the proposed personal claims by shareholders lacked a proper legal foundation as they did not demonstrate a personal cause of action separate from the company's claims.

The appellants, holding unsatisfied judgments against a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of their motion to compel payment from the lawyer's insurer (LawPRO).

The core issues were the interpretation of the insurance policy's aggregate limit for dishonest lawyer coverage and whether LawPRO reasonably expended funds on defence and investigation, thereby exhausting the limit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the $500,000 limit was an aggregate limit and that LawPRO's expenditures were reasonable, dismissing the appeals.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for 16 seasonal residential lots on the shoreline of Pigeon Lake.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted 'infill development' under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The Tribunal found that the proposal met the common usage definition of infill development and satisfied all requirements for the protection of key hydrologic and natural heritage features.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the draft plan of subdivision and amending the zoning by-law.