Donald R. Good

The defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff mortgagor’s action alleging an improvident power of sale of farm property, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that the mortgagee failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain true market value and relied on outdated appraisals when selling the property, while a retrospective expert appraisal suggested a significantly higher value.

The court held that evidentiary gaps, including untested appraisal evidence and unanswered allegations regarding the conduct of the mortgagee’s solicitor, created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court also refused security for costs, finding the moving party failed to establish any ground under Rule 56.01.

Both branches of the motion were dismissed.

The appellant marketing board appealed a trial decision finding the respondent abattoir was exempt from paying fees for 'barbecue' and extraprovincial hogs.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's order for an accounting regarding partially condemned hogs and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions based on the evidence and the parties' historical practices.

The appellants appealed a judgment deciding a matter by way of application, arguing that disputed facts precluded this procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while peripheral facts were disputed, the facts necessary to dispose of the application were not.

The court also granted leave to appeal the initial costs award, reducing it based on the proportionality principle, and awarded costs for the stay application and the appeal to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering the sale of a farm property and a subsequent order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the summary judgment, agreeing that financial imperatives required the property to be sold.

The Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the second order, permitting the appellant to amend his claim, except for asserting a claim for a vesting order or proprietary remedy.

A stay on an order for exclusive interim possession was continued with conditions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant farmer sued the respondent, claiming it supplied animal feed that caused death and illness to his livestock.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, noting the appellant failed to present expert evidence or cross-examine the respondent's affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to put his best foot forward and meet his evidentiary burden.

The appellants, rural landowners whose lands formed part of a natural gas storage pool, brought an action against the respondent gas company for breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and nuisance.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Ontario Energy Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the substance of the claims fell within the ambit of section 38 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, which grants the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine just and equitable compensation for gas storage rights and related damages.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The appellant did not seek costs for either the trial or the appeal.

Consequently, the previous trial costs order was set aside, and the court ordered that no costs be awarded for either the trial or the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for allegedly failing to answer undertakings, and the subsequent trial judgment made in his absence.

The Court of Appeal found that the order striking pleadings was made without sworn evidence and without full disclosure by the respondent's counsel regarding the appellant's efforts to answer the undertakings.

The Court set aside the order striking the pleadings and the trial judgment, noting that striking pleadings is an order of last resort.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their counterclaim regarding a crop insurance dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no agency relationship between the respondents and that the Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

Because the appellants failed to appeal to the Tribunal within the one-year limitation period, their claim was out of time and relief from forfeiture was unavailable as the failure constituted non-compliance rather than imperfect compliance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents sued Ontario in negligence after their dairy herd suffered health problems and low milk production, alleging that asphalt and concrete waste deposited on their farm by the Ministry of Transportation in the 1960s contaminated their well water.

The trial judge found Ontario liable and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and dismissed the action.

The Court held that Ontario did not breach the standard of care because the risk of harm to the cattle from the buried waste was not reasonably foreseeable in the 1960s.

Furthermore, Ontario had no statutory or common law duty to remove the waste or remediate the water, as testing showed the water met the allowable provincial drinking standards.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a removal order for animals on his farm, arguing that the veterinarian's certificate was false because the veterinarian did not physically examine every animal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a 'hands-on' examination of every animal is not required under s. 14 of the OSPCAA.

The veterinarian's visual observation of the herd, combined with a close examination of one animal and the surrounding circumstances, constituted a sufficient examination to ground the removal order.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondent bank, as the holder of the appellants' guarantee, was not a 'secured creditor' under section 2 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge, finding that the respondent was not required to give the appellants notice under section 21(1) of the Act before commencing an action on the guarantee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant municipality purchased an abandoned railway line and developed it into a trailway.

When adjoining landowners demanded fencing under the Line Fences Act, the municipality passed a by-law designating the trailway as a public highway to exempt itself from the fencing obligation.

The application judge quashed the by-law, finding it was passed in bad faith to avoid the cost of fencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality's appeal, holding that while courts owe deference to municipal decisions, good faith remains a central foundation for the validity of a by-law, and the record supported the finding of bad faith.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granted by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent bank's motion for summary judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge misapplied the test for summary judgment, improperly dismissed their claim that the minutes were altered without permission, and made implicit factual findings on conflicting evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial, as the documentation clearly showed the appellants agreed to a $100,000 settlement on a $125,000 loan, and bald assertions in a self-serving affidavit did not create a triable issue.

The applicants, dairy farmers, sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal confirming their violation of a milk marketing regulation and imposing penalties including quota and licence cancellations.

The applicants argued that an ongoing appeal stayed the regulation's operation.

The Divisional Court held that the stay did not suspend the validly enacted regulation and upheld the finding of liability.

However, the court found the penalty of licence cancellation and forced sale of remaining quota to be disproportionate and unjust, varying the penalty to only a partial cancellation of quota.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellant from a Superior Court decision under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Society argued that because the Act states the judge's decision is 'final', no further appeal lies and the appellant must proceed by judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the word 'final' does not oust the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Courts of Justice Act, and the decision is appealable as a final order of a Superior Court judge.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to admit five affidavits as evidence on the judicial review hearing, arguing they were necessary because no official transcript or audio recording of the tribunal proceedings existed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the delay was not deliberate or highly prejudicial.

The court granted the cross-motion, applying an exception to the general rule against admitting affidavits on judicial review, as the applicants would otherwise be unable to effectively challenge the tribunal's findings of fact and credibility.

The appellant blocked a channel between his property and the respondents', causing water to back up.

The trial judge found the channel was a natural watercourse, not merely surface water, and ordered the appellant to remove the barrier and pay damages.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in classifying the partially artificial channel as a natural watercourse and in finding it maintained its character downstream.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the channel was a well-defined natural watercourse where it was blocked.

The appellant farmer appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay the respondent for soybean seed, chemicals, and spraying services, and dismissing his counterclaim for crop losses.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding he authorized a herbicide substitution, in enforcing an allegedly illegal contract for an unregistered pesticide combination, and in calculating the quantity of soybeans ordered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that enforcing the contract for the unregistered pesticide combination was not contrary to public policy.