Eric K. Gillespie

The representative plaintiffs in two class actions against the Toronto Police Services Board for wrongful arrest and detention during the 2010 G20 Summit sought court approval for a proposed settlement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included up to $16.5 million in financial compensation, a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, commitments to reform policing of public demonstrations, and expungement of arrest records.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant non-monetary components and the risks of proceeding to trial.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, which amounted to approximately 28 percent of the recovery, as fair and reasonable.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an application regarding the sale of a property.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 11, 2020, and provided directions for the filing of materials via Caselines or a file-sharing platform.

The respondent agreed not to close the sale of the property prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

The court also provided directions for a potential motion for security for costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a City Council resolution to sell a municipal golf course and requested a stay of the decision pending the application.

During a case management teleconference, the court set a deadline for the applicant's materials and directed the parties to agree on a schedule and terms of an undertaking from the City in lieu of a stay order.

The court also addressed potential participation by the purchaser and a possible motion for security for costs by the City.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.

The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.

Nation Rise sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke its Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Minister had revoked the approval based on concerns about harm to bat maternity colonies, an issue not raised by the parties before the Environmental Review Tribunal or on appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the Minister's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Minister lacked statutory authority to raise new issues on appeal, applied the wrong legal test by using a precautionary approach, and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court also found the Minister breached procedural fairness by failing to give notice of the new issue and denying the parties an opportunity to make submissions on remedy.

The ERT's approval of the project was reinstated.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.

The third party, Gregory Cook, sought costs of a dismissed motion for interim costs brought by the defendant David Lawrence Denomme, as trustee of the estate of Daniel Thomas Denomme.

The court reviewed the third party's costs outline, found the time expended and partial indemnity hourly rates reasonable, and fixed costs to be paid by the estate trustee to the third party.

Homeowners appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their motion for a declaration that the respondents breached a Minutes of Settlement and granting the respondents declaratory relief enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The motion judge found that the respondents had complied with the Minutes of Settlement based on evidence that the work had been completed, including HVAC work, plumbing obligations, and permit closures.

The appellants advanced numerous grounds of appeal, all of which were dismissed.

The applicants brought an application under section 83 of the Municipal Elections Act to declare the 2018 municipal election in Lambton Shores invalid.

The applicants alleged nine distinct irregularities, primarily focusing on the municipality's exclusive use of internet and telephone voting, the removal of names from the voters' list, and privacy concerns.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no evidence of any irregularities that led to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters or the enfranchisement of ineligible voters.

The court concluded that the municipality complied with the Act and that the applicants' complaints stemmed from a personal distrust of electronic voting rather than actionable statutory breaches.

The Radford defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting of pleadings closed, with the plaintiffs bringing a cross-motion for default judgment, stemming from a real estate transaction involving soil contamination and an undertaking.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding they had a credible intent to defend the action for amounts exceeding a $13,000 holdback, based on a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief about their liability cap.

The court applied the Turner's Garage v. Shell test, emphasizing the full context and factual matrix, and found arguable defenses and no significant prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The appellant brought two motions: one to set aside a costs order made by a single judge on an abandoned motion for leave to appeal, and another for leave to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions.

The court found no error in the costs order, noting the appellant could have simply requested reasons under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act instead of bringing a motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal the tribunal's decision, agreeing that the appellant lacked standing under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act because he did not make oral or written submissions at the statutory public meeting.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a dispute over the construction of a residence.

The plaintiffs subsequently brought a motion for summary judgment, alleging the defendants breached the settlement terms regarding electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and roofing work, and sought damages.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to enforce the settlement, arguing they had fully complied.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that the defendants had completed all required work to the plaintiffs' satisfaction and that the settlement funds had been properly released.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement, and dismissed the underlying action and counterclaim.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.

The application also alleged bad faith.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law and legal non-conforming use, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant, a public interest litigant, had partial success but the main issue was decided in favour of the respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $40,000 to the respondent Picton Terminals.

The court declined to award costs to the respondent County, finding that its failure to recognize the trans-shipment use in its 2006 zoning by-law generated the uncertainty that led to the application, and recognizing the applicant as a public interest litigant.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing its motion to stay construction of a wind turbine project and its application for judicial review.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to halt construction, alleging violations of the Renewable Energy Approval.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's letter confirming construction was unavoidable did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision reviewable under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Consequently, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify an injunction.

An appeal from a Divisional Court decision upholding a Tribunal award of damages to a farm equipment dealer against a manufacturer/distributor for improper non-renewal of a dealership agreement.

The core issue concerned the retrospective application of Ontario Regulation 123/06 (Dealership Agreements Regulation) to an existing dealership agreement and the proper interpretation of the mandatory renewal provisions.

The manufacturer provided notice of non-renewal under the original agreement terms, but the Tribunal found this non-compliant with the Regulation's mandatory process requiring disclosure of all reasons for non-renewal and an opportunity for the dealer to respond.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's liability findings and damages award, dismissed the manufacturer's appeal, and allowed the dealer's cross-appeal on costs by restoring the Tribunal's costs award that had been quashed by the Divisional Court.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) sought a declaration that a Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Contract between the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and WPD White Pines Wind Incorporated (White Pines) was null and void, arguing White Pines failed to meet contractual capacity requirements.

APPEC also raised issues of legitimate expectations and negligent misrepresentation by IESO.

The court dismissed APPEC's application, finding that the doctrine of legitimate expectations did not apply as it creates procedural, not substantive, rights, and APPEC was not a party to the contract.

Furthermore, no special relationship existed to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation, and IESO and White Pines properly amended their contract in accordance with the FIT Rules and the Environmental Review Tribunal's decision.

The applicant sought a stay of a Renewable Energy Approval pending a motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order dismissing its application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court had found that the Ministry's letter regarding construction compliance was not a reviewable statutory power of decision, and that the applicant was attempting to disguise a challenge to the REA itself.

The Court of Appeal addressed the jurisdictional question of whether the Divisional Court's decision could be reviewed by the Court of Appeal or only by a panel of the Divisional Court under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court held that the panel review process applies and that the applicant must exhaust the Divisional Court's remedial jurisdiction before appealing to the Court of Appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal bylaw that exempted agricultural vehicles from heavy vehicle restrictions on a local ferry.

The applicants argued the municipal council improperly fettered its discretion and acted under a misapprehension of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the council had the jurisdiction to ease the restrictions it previously imposed, did not fetter its discretion, and the bylaw was not void for vagueness.