Colleen E. Robertshaw

The moving party sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his application for an extension of time to appeal a speeding conviction under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act.

He had been convicted in absentia after failing to attend his trial due to illness and his paralegal's failure to appear.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of an extension of time to appeal in proceedings under Parts I and II of the Act, as established by binding precedent.

The appellant, a former lawyer whose license was revoked, appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss his action against 11 of 16 defendants under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the Law Society Tribunal and Legal Aid Ontario, finding the claims abusive due to outstanding appeals and multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, reinstating claims against Doctor Michael Colleton and the Hamilton Police Service, ruling that these claims were not "clearest of cases" for Rule 2.1 dismissal and involved complex legal issues (e.g., absolute privilege, negligent investigation) better suited for a Rule 21 motion.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against several defendants under Rule 2.1.01, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that the claim raised novel issues, the costs claimed were excessive, and an award would cause undue hardship.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the claims were not novel and there was no evidence of impecuniosity.

The court awarded global costs of $10,500 to the successful defendants, applying a 20% reduction to the amounts claimed to reflect the possibility that the defendants could have filed a joint motion.

The self-represented plaintiff, a disbarred lawyer, commenced an action against 16 defendants, including the Law Society of Ontario, the Law Society Tribunal, Legal Aid Ontario, Hamilton Police Services, and various individuals involved in his disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

Several defendants brought requests under Rule 2.1.01(1) to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the claims against the Law Society Tribunal defendants as an improper collateral attack, against the Legal Aid Ontario defendants as duplicative of an existing action, against the Colleton defendants as barred by absolute privilege, and against the Hamilton Police defendants as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The action was allowed to continue against the remaining defendants who had not filed Rule 2.1 requests.

The applicant sought declarations that the City of Hamilton was deemed to have consented to a demolition application under the Ontario Heritage Act due to insufficient notice, and orders for the Chief Building Official to process a demolition permit application.

The core issue was whether the City's notice of refusal, sent to a director's residence rather than the corporation's registered office or the address on the second application, constituted sufficient notice.

The court, relying on Supreme Court of Canada precedent, found that Section 67 of the OHA does not provide an exhaustive list of notice methods and that the City had taken a "positive step" to give notice, which was actually received and acted upon by the applicant's sole director.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision upholding Inspection Orders issued by the Hamilton Fire Department following a fire at his rental property.

The property, originally a two-bedroom house, had been renovated without permits to contain nine bedrooms and two kitchens, occupied by university students.

The appellant argued the building was an individual dwelling unit exempt from certain Fire Code requirements.

The Fire Safety Commission found insufficient evidence of a single tenancy or collective decision-making to classify the property as a single dwelling unit.

The Commission concluded the property operated as a lodging house and that the ordered fire safety measures, including fire separations and a second basement exit, were necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Review Decision was confirmed with amended compliance dates.

Following a trial in which the plaintiffs’ occupiers’ liability claim arising from a fall in a municipal park was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs.

The court held that as the successful party the defendant was entitled to its costs of the proceeding on a partial indemnity basis.

A defence offer to settle consisting of dismissal without costs was found largely irrelevant to the costs determination.

After reviewing the costs outline, the court reduced the defendant’s requested amount as excessive and disallowed certain charges, including those related to other dismissed Family Law Act claims.

The court fixed costs for trial and pre‑trial work and awarded a total amount including HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff sued the City of Hamilton for injuries sustained after falling into a ravine in a wooded area of a city park at night.

The court held that the lower standard of care under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act applied because the plaintiff was engaged in a recreational activity and had wandered off a marked recreational trail.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the City did not act with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety, as it had no prior knowledge of the danger and the natural hazards were obvious.

Damages were assessed provisionally.

Following dismissal of a negligence action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs of the action.

The defendants sought costs, with some requesting substantial indemnity and the municipality requesting partial indemnity.

The court held that substantial indemnity was not justified in the absence of a Rule 49 offer or conduct warranting punitive costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the municipality’s claim due to disproportionate time spent compared with other parties.

Following a successful civil trial, the plaintiffs sought costs after beating their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court considered Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court emphasized that costs awards must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party and are not a precise calculation of actual legal fees.

Costs were fixed globally at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought an action against a municipality for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk.

The court considered whether the sidewalk was in a state of disrepair under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and whether the municipality could rely on statutory defences.

The court found that a significant sidewalk crack and height differential constituted a state of disrepair and that the municipality failed to establish that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent the default.

The plaintiff pedestrian was found contributorily negligent for failing to pay adequate attention despite familiarity with the defect.

Damages were awarded for personal injury, wage loss, and related losses, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory negligence.

The applicant sought judicial review of two orders made under the Building Code Act and moved to compel a building inspector to answer questions on cross-examination regarding an information sworn to obtain a search warrant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the search warrant information was irrelevant to the judicial review application, which concerned the legal validity of the initial inspection and orders.

The court directed that the application be heard at the next sittings of the Divisional Court.

The appellant track operator appealed a ruling of the Executive Director imposing a fine, probation, and a requirement to conduct a security audit.

The appellant brought motions for a stay of the ruling pending appeal and for further particulars.

The Commission granted the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured the appellant and the public interest would be protected by the appellant's continued compliance with existing rules and licence conditions.

The Administration agreed to provide the requested particulars.

The appellant, ING Canada Inc., appealed an order striking out portions of its amended statement of defence in an action brought by the respondents for misrepresentation and breach of a share purchase agreement.

The struck portions included pleas that the respondents owed an implied duty of good faith to disclose errors discovered before closing, references to the parties' intentions and expectations, and related factual allegations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the law regarding implied duties of good faith in commercial contracts is not fully settled, and therefore it was not plain and obvious that the defence would fail.

The court concluded that the detailed analysis required to determine whether to imply a duty of good faith, and the relevance of the parties' intentions, should be left for trial.