Courtney Vanessa Raphael

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.

The defendant municipality moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim arising from a municipal tax sale in which the plaintiff’s tender bids were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff alleged that higher bids were invalid because the envelopes did not contain the words “tax sale”, the tenders used an outdated form number, and the municipality altered the prescribed tender form.

The court held that the envelopes sufficiently indicated a tax sale, the use of “Form 8” rather than “Form 7” was an insignificant irregularity where the substance of the form was identical, and added headings did not affect the substance of the prescribed form.

Applying the summary judgment framework and statutory interpretation principles, the court found the tax sale complied with the governing regulation and raised no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.

A long‑serving employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression after being terminated for cause following a drunk driving accident involving the employer’s vehicle.

The employee had consumed alcohol during a lunch break, drove the employer’s truck without authorization, and caused a serious rollover collision resulting in severe injuries and a criminal conviction.

The court conducted a contextual analysis of just cause, considering the employee’s 23 years of service and clean disciplinary record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The court held that drunk driving while operating the employer’s vehicle during the course of employment constituted serious misconduct that fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and the court declined to address mitigation or the oppression claim.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his libel action against a magazine publisher.

The motion judge had concluded that certain excerpts were not defamatory or not capable of referring to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in his application of the test for summary judgment.

The Court held that, reading the article as a whole, the excerpts were capable of being defamatory of the appellant and raised a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant was wrongfully convicted of robbery after a police investigation.

He was later acquitted and sued the police for negligent investigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the tort of negligent investigation, holding that police owe a duty of care to suspects under investigation.

However, applying the standard of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances, the Court found that the police conduct in this case, while flawed, did not breach the standard of care.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.