4 total
Liquor licence granted to convenience store without conditions; objectors failed to prove public interest concerns.
The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents and the City of Hamilton.
The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The added parties opposed the licence on public policy grounds and requested conditions if granted.
The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification program and lack of prior infractions.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.
Liquor licence granted to 7-Eleven convenience store subject to conditions addressing neighbourhood concerns.
The applicant, 7-Eleven Canada Inc., applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store in Hamilton.
The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application after receiving objections from local residents and the City of Hamilton.
The added parties argued that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to general policy concerns about alcohol in convenience stores and specific issues with loitering, garbage, and petty crime at the premises.
The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that the licence was not in the public interest, noting the applicant's robust age verification program and recent steps taken to address neighbourhood concerns.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including a 'Good Neighbour' sign, a contact sign for complaints, and exterior security cameras.
Action stayed for lack of jurisdiction as motor vehicle accident occurred in Alberta between non-resident defendant.
The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta while a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant, an Alberta resident.
The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario.
The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.
The court applied the Van Breda framework and found no presumptive connecting factors to Ontario, as the tort occurred in Alberta and the defendant resided there.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence, noting the defendant consistently challenged jurisdiction.
The action was stayed.
The Court of Appeal upheld a 60/40 liability apportionment for a residential oil spill and clarified that Pierringer settlement amounts are not deducted from a non-settling defendant's proportionate share unless there is double recovery.
On appeal from a trial judgment involving an oil tank leak at a residential property.
The trial judge found Thompson Fuels negligent for failing to conduct required comprehensive inspections and water testing of fuel oil tanks, but found the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) not liable.
The plaintiff was found 60% contributorily negligent and Thompson Fuels 40% liable.
The appellate court upheld the trial judgment with one adjustment regarding betterment related to a line of credit.
The court addressed complex issues including the enforceability of exclusion clauses in consumer contracts, the application of regulatory obligations to civil liability, Pierringer agreements, and the calculation of damages in environmental contamination cases.
