Desneiges Mitchell

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to strike four affidavits and quash two notices of examination filed by the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association in support of its application for judicial review of a decision granting a heritage permit.

Applying a hybrid approach, the court struck portions of the affidavits that contained argument or speculation but left the admissibility of the remaining evidence to the panel hearing the application.

The court quashed the notice of examination for one City Planner who was not involved in the impugned decision, but permitted the examination of the other planner, subject to strict limits on the scope of questioning and document production.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the residents association based on divided success.

The applicant challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that an arbitration clause in an alleged lease agreement was valid.

The applicant claimed his signature on the lease was forged.

The court determined that under s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the application was a hearing de novo.

After assessing lay and expert evidence, including handwriting and ink dating experts, the court found the respondents failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant signed the lease.

The court declared the lease and its arbitration clause invalid and set aside the arbitrator's ruling.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages related to an oil spill caused by a corroded oil filter.

The appellant argued that the respondent's oil burner technician (OBT) breached the standard of care by failing to replace the filter, citing manufacturer instructions for annual replacement, the Ontario Installation Code for Oil-Burning Equipment, and a duty to 'tag out' the filter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the OBT was not obligated to replace the filter if it was in good condition, that manufacturer instructions were recommendations rather than requirements under the Code, and that the 'tag out' requirement did not apply as the OBT deemed the filter in good working order.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's factual findings.

The plaintiff, a former Service Advisor at a Canadian Tire store, sued his former employer and others for wrongful dismissal, malicious prosecution, defamation, and other torts after he was fired and arrested for allegedly installing KGB spyware on his manager's computer.

The plaintiff claimed he was framed by the defendants either because he refused to 'upsell' or as a decoy for a separate credit card pin pad fraud.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theories, finding that the employer proved on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff installed the spyware, which constituted just cause for dismissal.

The court also dismissed all tort claims, finding the defendants had reasonable grounds to call the police, the police independently decided to lay charges, and the defendants' conduct was not malicious, outrageous, or defamatory.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to use expanded fact-finding powers under Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to grant summary judgment and avoid a trial.

They also challenged the partial indemnity costs award of $24,294.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and no basis to interfere with the costs award.