Douglas Randall Adams

The appellants appealed a motion judge's declaration that a condominium corporation is a homeowner for the purpose of the warranty provisions of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants argued that the definitions of 'home' and 'owner' in section 1 of the Act do not apply to a condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 15(a) of the Act clearly deems a condominium corporation to be the owner of the common elements for the purposes of the warranty provisions.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a claim by a warranty administrator to recover amounts paid from a statutory guarantee fund for condominium common element defects.

The motion raised issues of statutory interpretation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act concerning whether a condominium corporation is entitled to enforce warranty rights relating to common elements.

The court held that the statute deems a condominium corporation to be the owner of common elements for warranty purposes and therefore entitled to enforce such warranties.

Alternatively, the warranty administrator was entitled to pursue recovery through statutory subrogation after paying claims from the guarantee fund.

The defendants’ motion was dismissed and the indemnitor was declared personally liable for any deficiency once the amount is quantified.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to strike the defence of two defendants, obtain payment of $13,000 held in trust that had previously been ordered payable to a corporate defendant, and seek personal costs against the defendant’s solicitors.

The corporate defendant had been dissolved prior to earlier court orders but was in receivership, and an affidavit had mistakenly referred to it as being in receivership without mentioning the dissolution.

The court held that under s. 242(1) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, proceedings against a dissolved corporation may continue and property of the corporation remains available to satisfy orders.

The dissolution did not invalidate earlier court orders or terminate the receivership, and the inadvertent misstatement about receivership did not justify setting aside the prior order.

The trust funds were ordered paid to the receiver and the plaintiff’s motion largely failed except for the uncontested striking of the other defendants’ defence.

The claimant owned a truck stop on Highway 17.

The Province constructed a new section of Highway 417 for public safety reasons, which rerouted traffic and altered access to the claimant's property.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded damages, finding the interference constituted an actionable nuisance and resulted from the construction, not the use, of the highway.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the interference was substantial, the Board erred in its reasonableness analysis by failing to properly balance the competing interests, particularly the significant public utility of the new highway.

The Court of Appeal concluded the interference was not unreasonable, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the claimant's claim for injurious affection.

The Minister of Transportation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. $393,000 for injurious affection resulting from the construction of Highway 417, which bypassed Antrim's property and substantially interfered with its access.

Antrim cross-appealed, seeking over $7.6 million for relocation and construction costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the OMB reasonably concluded the highway construction caused a substantial interference amounting to an actionable nuisance, and correctly held that the Expropriations Act does not permit recovery of relocation costs where no land is expropriated.

The appellant was retained by the respondents to negotiate scientific research tax credits on a commission basis.

The respondents breached the contract by terminating the appellant without notice.

The trial judge awarded $45,000 in damages based on the lost chance of success, which the appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on damages, finding the trial judge's quantification reasonable.

However, the Court granted the respondents' cross-appeal on costs, holding that the trial judge erred by leaving the determination of a Rule 49 offer to the assessment officer, and awarded costs to the respondents from the date of the offer.