Donald Gordon Kidd

Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 161 and John Curtis Redmond each brought applications concerning alleged breaches of condominium rules and common element maintenance issues, specifically regarding surface drainage and grading.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement, resolving all substantive disputes but reserving the question of costs for judicial determination.

The court declined to award costs to either party, emphasizing that where parties settle all substantive issues without judicial adjudication, the court should be reluctant to conduct a "paper trial" on the merits solely for the purpose of determining costs.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture of elected municipal office after failing to file an audited campaign financial statement as required by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The failure arose from an accounting error that caused the applicant to mistakenly believe an audit was not required.

The court considered its equitable jurisdiction under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and applied the relief-from-forfeiture test focusing on the applicant’s conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the proportionality between the breach and the forfeiture.

The court found the breach technical and inadvertent, that the applicant acted in good faith, and that no prejudice resulted.

Relief from forfeiture was granted, allowing the applicant to retain the elected office.

Following a successful motion fixing the statutory construction lien holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to lien claimants.

The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs based on a late offer to settle and alleged litigation conduct by the opposing mortgagee representative.

The court held that the offer did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it was served fewer than seven days before the hearing, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying costs beyond the usual partial indemnity scale.

Costs were therefore awarded primarily to the two counsel who carried the motion on behalf of all lien claimants, with modest costs granted to several additional claimants who attended but did not argue the motion.

The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.

The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.

The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.

The plaintiffs, former employees of GMA Cover Corp., were summarily terminated without notice or compensation following a complex corporate reorganization.

They brought an action claiming the various corporate defendants were common employers and moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the sale or encumbrance of the defendants' only remaining asset in Ontario, a property in Guelph.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case on the merits of the common employer claim and satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction, inferring an intent by the defendants to frustrate the plaintiffs' claims.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully sought to strike an affidavit sworn by a lawyer from the plaintiffs’ law firm, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable.

Although the defendants succeeded on grounds different from their primary argument, the court found they were nevertheless the successful party.

The court assessed reasonable preparation and attendance time for counsel and limited clerk time on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were calculated using hourly rates for counsel and clerk time and applicable tax.

The moving parties brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action and requested that the responding parties’ affidavit evidence sworn by a law partner of counsel be struck.

The court considered whether it was proper for counsel to rely on an affidavit sworn by a partner in the same firm who had previously acted as lawyer of record.

Reviewing prior jurisprudence and professional conduct rules, the court held that certain portions of the affidavit contained improper hearsay, legal argument, and evidence that should have come from the client or documentary exhibits.

The court struck the improper portions and ultimately struck the affidavit in its entirety while granting leave to file new responding material.

The motion for summary judgment was not determined on the merits at this stage.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order continuing an interim Mareva injunction to trial.

The motions judge had applied the doctrine of abuse of process, finding no new evidence was presented since the initial interim order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the order under Rule 62.02(4), despite the motions judge's lack of detailed analysis.

The applicants, parents of children at Arthur District High School, sought judicial review of the Upper Grand District School Board's decision to close the school.

They argued the Board failed to comply with statutory duties and its own accommodation review policy, thereby denying the community meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had considered numerous alternatives, provided necessary information, and afforded the community a fair opportunity to participate in the consultation process.