David John Outerbridge

The applicant sought judicial review of an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding its application for registration as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the pre-hearing order did not compel the Registrar to register the applicant, but only to consider the application.

The Court also held that judicial review was inappropriate because the applicant had an adequate and preferable alternative remedy through a statutory appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which provides a hearing de novo.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing her appeal for lack of standing.

After initiating a claim against Tarion for the cost of an unapproved fireplace installation, the appellant sold her home but entered into a collateral agreement with the purchasers to maintain her claim.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, warranties run with the home and former owners lack standing.

The court further held that the collateral agreement could not assign the fireplace claim, as the purchasers had no such claim to assign, and assigning warranty claims violates s. 13(6) of the Act.

The appellants, representing former Barbados participating policyholders of Manulife, brought a class action for negligence.

They claimed Manulife owed them a duty of care to protect their interests when it transferred their policies to another insurer in 1996, three years before Manulife demutualized and distributed $9 billion to its participating policyholders.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that while harm was foreseeable, policy reasons negated a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim was for pure economic loss and did not fall within established categories.

The Court found no prima facie duty of care because the relationship lacked sufficient proximity, as the policyholders had no legally recognized right to share in a future demutualization at the time of the transfer, and the governing legislation permitted Manulife to terminate the relationship.

A non‑party developer sought a protective order restricting disclosure of its financial and project financing documents produced in litigation concerning a municipal RFP process.

The moving party argued the information was confidential and that disclosure to a competitor should be limited to counsel and experts and sealed from the public record.

Applying the test in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court held the evidence did not establish a real and substantial risk of harm or a sufficiently important commercial interest.

The court emphasized the open court principle and the public interest in transparency where allegations of political influence and misconduct in a municipal procurement process were raised.

The motion for a protective and sealing order was dismissed, though the court ordered reciprocal disclosure of equivalent financial documents relating to the plaintiff’s proposal.

The appellants appealed a decision setting aside a stay of proceedings granted by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the officer's conduct might have justified a finding of abuse of process, a stay of proceedings was not the only remedy available.

The court emphasized that a stay is a prospective remedy of last resort, and lesser remedies, such as disregarding the officer's testimony or addressing disclosure issues, were sufficient to remove any prejudice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1352, was awarded costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent Tarion Warranty Corporation was also awarded costs of $11,000, as the appellant was unsuccessful in seeking relief against it.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a Rule 21 motion seeking to strike a condominium corporation’s action arising from alleged construction defects, including sanitary sewer failures and exterior cladding water penetration.

The court held that although Tarion’s warranty denial decisions were judicial and final for issue estoppel purposes, applying issue estoppel would work an injustice given the consumer protection purpose of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, the permissive language of the tribunal appeal provisions, the procedural limits of Tarion proceedings, and the advantage of resolving all claims in one forum.

The court further held that the civil action was not an impermissible collateral attack, that Tarion could be sued for payment from the guarantee fund, that the sanitary sewer allegations were not plainly outside the definition of major structural defect, and that the EIFS limitation argument failed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision reversing a stay of proceedings.

The trial judge had stayed the proceedings for operating a public garage contrary to a municipal by-law, finding the prosecution was an abuse of process based on the by-law officer's evidence.

The appeal judge reversed the stay and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, finding the case raised significant questions of law regarding the laying of charges by enforcement officers that met the public interest requirement.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of Barbados participating policyholders, brought an action against Manulife following the transfer of their policies to Life of Barbados (LOB) in 1996 and Manulife's subsequent demutualization in 1999.

The plaintiffs claimed that Manulife owed them a duty of care and a fiduciary duty to protect their rights to participate in the demutualization.

The court found that while it was reasonably foreseeable that Manulife would demutualize, no duty of care or fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs because their rights as policyholders were lawfully extinguished by the transfer agreement, which was approved by regulators in Barbados and Canada.

The action was dismissed.

The respondent contractor was retained to construct a new home.

He performed most of the work, but the owners installed the well, septic system, and fireplaces.

The respondent was charged with failing to register as a builder under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

He was acquitted at trial and on appeal on the basis that he was not a 'builder' because he did not perform all the work.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act is consumer protection legislation requiring a broad interpretation.

A contractor who performs a significant portion of the construction is a 'builder' even if the owner is responsible for some work.

The respondent, an architect, began constructing a new home with the intention of occupying it with his family.

When his existing home failed to sell, his intention changed, and he eventually sold the new home.

He was charged with acting as an unregistered builder and failing to enrol the home under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld his acquittals, finding that the statutory definition of 'builder' applies to those who undertake construction for the purpose of sale from the outset, not to those who begin building for personal use and later change their intention.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a claim to Casino Rama profits, the successful respondents sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale, citing the appellant's conduct and shifting theories.

The Court of Appeal declined to award elevated costs, finding the appellant's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $250,000 for the Chiefs of Ontario and OFNLP, and $75,000 for Ontario.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The appellants purchased a new home and made claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for construction defects.

Tarion denied some claims, and the appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

During the appeal process, the appellants defaulted on their mortgage, and the home was sold under power of sale.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants lost standing to pursue the warranty claims when they ceased to own the home.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that the statutory warranty runs with the land and that the appellants' claim for damages for diminution in value constituted excluded secondary damage.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding their claims for water leak repairs under a statutory warranty.

The court previously dismissed the appeal but issued this supplementary endorsement to address remaining issues regarding the interpretation of settlement releases, a side letter, and estoppel.

The court held that the releases constituted the entire agreement and that the side letter did not bind the warranty program.

Furthermore, the appellants were estopped from relying on the side letter against the program because the program had reasonably relied on the releases to its detriment by relinquishing security.

The appeal on the remaining issues was dismissed with costs.

The Attorney General for Ontario moved for a stay of an order requiring the production of a videotaped police statement in a civil action, pending an application for leave to appeal.

The videotape was made by the plaintiff regarding sexual assault allegations against a former teacher of the defendant school, and had already been disclosed to the accused in the related criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the Master's jurisdiction or the application of litigation privilege, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the parties in the civil action.

The appellant condominium corporations appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision disallowing their warranty claims against the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

The appellants argued that under s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, statutory warranties continue in force despite any agreement to the contrary, rendering their previously executed releases with the builder unenforceable.

The Divisional Court distinguished prior case law, noting the releases were executed by sophisticated parties with legal advice to settle a known, properly filed warranty claim.

The Court held that the Act encourages settlements and does not bar parties from settling claims in exchange for a release.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached an exclusive supplier agreement and awarding the respondent nearly $5 million in lost profits.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to imply a term requiring customer consent, finding a breach regarding a specific contract, and excluding certain evidence on damages.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking an additional $1 million in damages, arguing the trial judge arbitrarily increased the calculation of incremental overhead expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and his legal conclusions were correct.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an initial order made under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act that authorized the debtor to obtain debtor-in-possession financing with superpriority over existing security.

The initial order was made without notice but included a comeback clause allowing interested parties to seek variations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as premature, holding that the moving party should first utilize the comeback clause to have their concerns heard by the supervising judge on a full record.