4 total
Appeal from interlocutory LTB order dismissed under Rule 2.1 for lack of jurisdiction.
The tenants appealed an interlocutory order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that granted the landlord's review request and ordered a new hearing for a rent abatement application.
The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The court held that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory order of the LTB.
The court declined to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, finding it would be premature.
The appeal was dismissed under Rule 2.1.
Costs awarded to respondents after applicants' public interest litigant argument rejected for pursuing personal pecuniary interests.
The respondents brought a motion to strike the applicants' application.
The court did not strike the application but granted the applicants leave to convert it to an action.
The parties subsequently made written submissions on the costs of the motion.
The applicants argued they should not be subject to costs as they were public interest litigants.
The court rejected this argument, finding the applicants were pursuing a personal pecuniary interest related to their commercial property.
The court awarded costs to the respondents, fixing the amounts at $15,000 plus disbursements for the federal respondents, and $2,500 each for the two municipal respondents.
The court awarded costs to the respondents after rejecting the applicants' late claim to be public interest litigants.
This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants' initial application was converted to an action, which they subsequently did not pursue.
The respondents sought costs for the motion.
The court determined that the applicants were not public interest litigants, as their claims were personal and pecuniary.
Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay partial costs to the various respondents, reflecting the respondents' ultimate success in concluding the litigation, albeit not on the exact grounds initially pleaded.
Negligence claim against federal government dismissed for lack of evidence linking officials to alleged harm.
Self‑represented plaintiffs sued the federal government for negligence and negligent investigation, alleging Canadian officials spread false information that caused foreign authorities to detain the plaintiff at the U.S. border and delay an Australian visa.
The court accepted that the detention and visa delay occurred but found no evidence that Canadian officials provided misinformation or were involved in the actions of U.S. or Australian authorities.
The plaintiffs relied largely on speculation and correspondence rather than proof of wrongdoing.
The court held that the elements of negligent investigation were not established and that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or any actionable conduct by the defendant.
The derivative claim under the Family Law Act also failed.
The action was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
