Christopher Joseph Henderson

The plaintiff's action against the City of Toronto and several individuals was dismissed by the court on its own motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the statement of claim lacked material facts against some defendants, was brought far outside the limitation period for events dating back to 1996-2000, contained serious but unsubstantiated allegations, and represented a re-litigation of matters previously decided against the plaintiff in numerous prior proceedings and appeals.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on referral from the registrar's office following a request from the defendants, reviewed the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 for being frivolous and vexatious.

The court found the claim appeared to be frivolous and vexatious and ordered that the plaintiff be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

Pending the outcome of this review, the plaintiff's action was stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and further filings were restricted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a Divisional Court order that had allowed appeals from a Superior Court order.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court's reasoning and conclusions, dismissing the appeal.

The parties also agreed on an all-inclusive costs award of $35,000 payable by the appellant to the respondents, covering all levels of court proceedings, including the motion for leave to appeal.

The applicant sought a declaration that the proposed use of a property as a municipal shelter was not permitted under Toronto's zoning by-laws, arguing it was not a permitted use and that a proposed patio was prohibited.

The respondents asserted the matter should have been brought as an appeal under the Building Code Act, 1992, and that the intended use was permitted.

The court found the proceeding was properly an appeal of the chief building official's decision, not a Rule 14 application.

The court affirmed the chief building official's decision, finding no error in the determination that the shelter use was permitted and that the patio issue was premature as no final decision had been made on it.

The applicant sought a determination on whether an "air parcel" constitutes assessable "land" under section 1(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

A.31.

The court concluded that an air parcel, as defined in a strata plan, is not "land" for the purposes of the Act until a physical structure is affixed to the ground.

The decision emphasized that the statutory definition of "land" is paramount, not common law or conveyancing practices, and that legislative amendment would be required to include air parcels for taxation.

The applicant's request for an order was granted, and costs were awarded.

The applicant sought to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his appeal for delay and requested a 30-day extension of time to perfect his appeal from Superior Court orders dated June 11 and August 7, 2013.

Justice Cronk dismissed the motion and granted the respondent's cross-motion prohibiting the applicant from bringing further motions in the proceeding, except for a motion to a full panel to review Cronk J.A.'s decision.

This panel decision confirms Cronk J.A.'s order, finding no merit to the applicant's submissions regarding lack of competent jurisdiction or denial of due process.

Self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim in litigation concerning alleged improper property tax arrears, tax increases, and related municipal conduct.

The defendant municipality opposed several amendments, arguing that some referred to settlement discussions, were legally untenable, or improperly pleaded evidence or argument.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the presumptive right to amend pleadings unless non-compensable prejudice would result.

While certain amendments were refused—particularly those referring to settlement privilege, improperly pleaded Charter claims, irrelevant commentary, and legally untenable allegations—the majority of amendments were permitted with modifications, recognizing the latitude afforded to self-represented litigants.

The defendant’s cross-motion seeking case management was adjourned without a date.

The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law repealing a heritage designation affecting its hotel property and sought related relief concerning heritage property tax rebates.

The municipality had approved demolition of the original designated heritage building in 1996 but did not repeal the designation by-law until 2012, when it enacted a repealing by-law retroactive to the demolition approval date pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant alleged illegality and bad faith, arguing that the municipality failed to provide prior notice and enacted the repeal retroactively to defeat its tax rebate claims.

The court held that prior notice was not required where the Act mandated repeal following approval of demolition, and that the retroactive repeal was a reasonable step to comply belatedly with statutory requirements.

The applicant failed to establish bad faith or illegality, and further failed to meet additional eligibility criteria for the heritage tax rebate program.