Colleen E. Butler

The applicant, a land surveying company, sought indemnification from the respondent insurance company under a professional liability insurance policy for a settlement payment of $3,200,000.00 relating to the Halton Claim.

The respondent had already paid $5,000,000.00 under the policy for an unrelated Port Lands Claim.

The court determined that the Halton Claim fell within the policy's coverage, that it was covered under the first policy period based on when the applicant first received notice of the claim, and that the applicant did not breach its duty to cooperate with the insurer.

The court ordered full indemnification of the settlement amount plus costs.

The applicants sought a declaration regarding the scope of their right of way over the respondent's property to access their cottage, and an order that the respondent remove a gate and fences he installed.

The court held that the easement allowed the applicants to access their property from any point along the northern or eastern borders, but did not grant an ancillary right to park on the right of way.

The court found that the respondent's installation of a fence substantially interfered with the applicants' use of the right of way and ordered its removal, but held that the padlocked gate did not constitute a substantial interference.

The Town of Grand Valley sought declarations that Paul Kenneth Walker's trucking business contravened its zoning by-laws and a statutory injunction to prohibit its operation.

Walker and Jones argued the business conformed with the former by-law and raised defenses of laches and promissory estoppel.

The court found triable issues regarding conformity with the former by-law and the applicability of equitable doctrines, dismissing the Town's application for an injunction and directing a trial on these issues.

The Town of New Tecumseth sought an injunction to shut down Norman Dallard's ice cream shop, "What's the Scoop," alleging multiple zoning by-law infractions related to external evidence of a home-based business and employee residency.

Dallard contended that the Town was unfairly targeting him and acting unreasonably.

The court found that the Town had established several by-law breaches, particularly concerning unapproved signage, patron-accessible patio furniture, and the business not being entirely contained within the dwelling, as well as exceeding the permitted number of non-resident employees.

However, the court rejected the Town's claim that the business had become the predominant use of the property and dismissed allegations of bad faith or unreasonable targeting by the Town.

Instead of a full injunction to shut down the business, the court ordered specific compliance measures and awarded the Town $7,500 in costs, adjourning the application sine die for future compliance issues.

The defendant, a Quebec company, brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's breach of contract action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, an Ontario company, brought a cross-motion to validate service of the claim.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the contract was formed in Ontario and the defendant carried on business in Ontario.

The court also held that the defendant failed to establish that Quebec was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to validate service was granted.