Christopher J. Williams

The appellant, Oro-Medonte Property Owners’ Association, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to quash a by-law imposing water system fees and to declare the water system municipal.

The by-law was passed by the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, to fund upgrades to the Zone 1 water system.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Zone 1 system was not assumed by the municipality and that the by-law was within the municipality's statutory authority under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bridge company's statement of claim, which sought contribution and indemnity for damages and legal costs arising from five nuisance actions brought by local residents.

The residents alleged that the plaintiff's boarded-up houses caused urban blight.

The plaintiff claimed the municipality unlawfully withheld demolition permits, causing the nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the action was not an abuse of process nor barred by issue estoppel.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its pleadings to better particularize misfeasance in public office and negligence.

The applicant mother was found in contempt for breaching an access order and failing to provide notice of a school change.

This endorsement addresses the penalty and compliance.

The court found the mother had not purged her contempt and was actively undermining the child's relationship with the father through various means, including influencing the child and involving an off-duty police officer friend to thwart access.

The court ordered reconciliation counseling, paid by the mother, and a modified access schedule with police enforcement to re-establish the father's relationship with the child.

Following a successful application confirming user in common rights on a subdivision plan, the applicants sought costs of $51,593.86.

The respondent landowners argued the amount was excessive for a one-day hearing.

The respondent municipality also sought costs against the respondent landowners.

The court awarded the applicants $45,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the claimed amount excessive despite the complexity of the historical real estate issues.

The municipality was awarded $2,500 in costs for its helpful submissions, though its costs were reduced because it remained adverse in interest to the applicants until the morning of the hearing.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.