Colleen E. Butler

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a related civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly analyze the distinct factual underpinnings and time periods of the two proceedings.

The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.

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 appellant sought costs following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law application.

The appellant had submitted an offer to settle 10 days before the appeal hearing.

The respondent municipality argued the offer should not be considered because it lacked time to obtain instructions from the town council, and that it should not pay costs for the initial appearance where the application was stayed.

The Divisional Court rejected both arguments, finding the offer was served within the time required by the Rules and the respondent had supported the erroneous stay.

The court awarded the appellant costs of $29,303.73, including substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The appellant operates a licensed cannabis micro-cultivation facility on agriculturally zoned land.

The respondent municipality took the position that the zoning by-law prohibited this use, prompting the appellant to seek a rezoning amendment and a declaration from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The appellant subsequently brought a Superior Court application for a declaration that the by-law did not prohibit his use.

The application judge adjourned the matter, finding it premature and potentially moot pending the administrative proceedings.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction to interpret the by-law.

Exercising its discretion to decide the application, the Court held that the by-law's prohibition of a 'Medical Marihuana Production Facility' did not apply to the appellant's micro-cultivation facility.

The appellants appealed the Town's enactment of a comprehensive zoning by-law.

At a case management conference, the parties advised that they were continuing settlement discussions and that a related appeal, which had been adjourned sine die, would impact the present matter.

The Tribunal found that further processing of the appeals was premature and ordered the parties to provide a status update within 90 days.

The applicants, who operate an outdoor cannabis grow area, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for relief from a municipal zoning by-law that required site plan approval and a 300-metre setback from residential lots.

The municipality argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, asserting the by-law provisions were legitimate land use planning issues.

The Board found that the cannabis operation met the definition of an agricultural operation under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board further determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, distinguishing the case from Oakville because the lands were zoned for agricultural use and cannabis cultivation was a permitted use, meaning the setback and site plan requirements were not purely land use planning issues that would deprive the Board of jurisdiction.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 12.5 metres to 7.0 metres for a proposed single detached dwelling.

The Town did not call a case, and the applicant summoned the Town's Manager of Development Planning, who provided uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the variance.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframe.

During the initial hearing dates, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, reached an Agreed Statement of Facts, and narrowed the issues.

The Tribunal directed the submission of a final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.R. McCarthy J. dated December 22, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever 10.9 hectares of agricultural land and merge it with an adjacent agricultural property to facilitate a more efficient farming operation.

The Town opposed the application, arguing it constituted lot creation and would leave the retained parcel undersized under the 40-hectare minimum in the Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal was a minor lot boundary adjustment for farm consolidation that did not create a new lot, and that the retained parcel would remain agriculturally viable.

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 appellant appealed the Town of New Tecumseth's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of five freehold townhomes.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to one individual and participant status to another on consent.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to prepare a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale but failed to close because she could not sell her own property in a cooling market.

The vendor relisted and sold the property for a lower price and sued for the difference and carrying costs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the purchaser breached the agreement and the vendor reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property at fair market value.

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 appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which found that the respondent's proposal to import fill to establish an apple orchard was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the Town's fill by-law.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings on the evidence and its interpretation of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

However, the Court granted the appeal in part to amend the Board's order, allowing the Town an opportunity to provide comments on the required fill management plan before it is finalized.

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 applicant sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that a municipal site alteration by-law restricted his proposed normal farm practice.

The applicant planned to import approximately 87,000 cubic metres of fill to improve the topography of his land for an apple orchard, addressing water and air drainage issues.

The Board found that the applicant had standing and demonstrable plans, and that the importation of fill for land improvement constituted a normal farm practice using innovative technology.

The Board ruled that the municipal by-law restricted this practice and ordered that the practice be permitted subject to strict compliance with a Fill Management Plan and provincial best management practices.

The appellant, a Québec corporation, appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay proceedings brought by the respondent, an Ontario corporation, on the basis of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The dispute involved a contract for the importation and sale of chicken.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's findings that the contract was made in Ontario, the appellant carried on business in Ontario, and there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The appellant landowner sued the Town of Newmarket for negligence after its tenant allowed third parties to deposit significantly more fill on the demised land than the appellant had authorized.

The source of some of the fill was a subdivision within the municipality.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the municipality owed no duty of care to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal agreed, distinguishing the case law relied upon by the appellant, and dismissed the appeal.