Gabrielle Kimberly Kramer

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Municipal Order to Pay Costs issued by the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The order relates to spills from underground storage tanks at a gas station.

The appellants requested a motion to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of a related civil matter in the Ontario Superior Court.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing for October 10, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for December 8, 2025.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that overturned the respondent's conviction under the Endangered Species Act for damaging Blanding's turtle habitat.

The appeal judge had entered an acquittal after finding the circumstantial evidence of turtle sightings from prior and subsequent years insufficient to prove the land was habitat at the time of the offence.

The Court of Appeal held that while the appeal judge's conclusion raised a question of law alone, the Crown failed to demonstrate that granting leave was essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The decision below was highly fact-specific and unlikely to establish a binding precedent requiring direct evidence of habitat use.

Leave to appeal was denied, and the respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an environmental compliance order concerning benzene emissions, three community members sought party status.

The Tribunal granted them party status under s. 145(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, finding their individual perspectives on health impacts would assist the adjudication.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant leave to amend its grounds for appeal in light of a new federal Interim Order and provincial regulation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by INEOS Styrolution Canada Ltd. against a Director's Order and the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval related to benzene emissions.

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation requested and was granted party status without objection, given its direct interest and the health impacts experienced by its members.

The Tribunal also set dates for the first Case Management Conference and a two-day stay motion, and established a schedule for the exchange of motion materials.

The defendant brought a motion to vary an Amended Judgment to reflect a settlement agreement between the parties.

The parties consented to the amendment, which provided for a lump sum payment in exchange for relinquishing interests in certain properties.

The court granted the motion pursuant to Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the parties were seeking relief other than what was originally awarded.

The plaintiff purchased property from the defendant church to build social housing.

Prior to the sale, the church retained the defendant environmental consultant to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

The consultant's report, which contained a standard disclaimer clause limiting liability to third parties, was provided to the plaintiff by the church without the consultant's knowledge or consent.

After closing, the plaintiff discovered soil contamination and sued the church and the consultant for negligent misrepresentation.

The consultant moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the disclaimer clause effectively excluded any duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and dismissed the action and crossclaims against the consultant.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment of $278,821.41.

The defendant's insurance adjuster had inadvertently missed communications from the plaintiffs' counsel, leading to the default.

Applying the five-part test from Mountain View Farms, the court found the failure to defend was due to inadvertence, the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the judgment, and there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

Tamlann Investments Inc., a former owner of the subject lands and an orderee, was granted party status over the appellant's objection.

Erectoweld Limited, a neighbouring property owner, was granted participant status on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a seven-day hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Markham's alleged decisions to plan and approve a four-lane collector road crossing protected Greenbelt lands.

The City argued the application was premature because the environmental assessment and planning processes were ongoing and no final location for the road had been determined.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are complete.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

The appellants and respondent, owners of adjoining properties, disputed the use of a mutual driveway.

The application judge found that a 1975 right-of-way agreement bound successor owners despite lacking a formal enurement clause, as the agreement's wording showed a manifest intention to create an easement running with the land.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings on rectification and factual issues regarding vehicular access and substantial interference.

This decision addresses costs following a successful application by Fela Grunwald and a dismissed application by Edwin Le Marchant and Laura Fiset concerning a right-of-way agreement.

Grunwald sought substantial indemnity costs of $97,459.25 or partial indemnity costs of $80,603.86.

The Le Marchants proposed $43,035.

The court awarded Grunwald $66,000, all inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the Le Marchants' arguments were without merit, their conduct did not warrant punitive substantial indemnity costs.

The decision emphasizes that costs generally follow the event on a partial indemnity scale, guided by the principles of indemnification, reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful litigant, and overall reasonableness under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicants sought a declaration that a right-of-way agreement over a mutual driveway was void, while the respondent brought a cross-application seeking rectification of the agreement and an injunction against interference.

The court found that the right-of-way agreement was valid despite lacking a formal enurement clause, as the intention to create an easement running with the land was clear.

The court granted the respondent's application for rectification of the agreement and the parcel registers to correct a drafting error regarding the commencement point of the right-of-way.

The court also declared the respondent's right to vehicular access and ordered the applicants to remove encroachments, including a shed and fence, that substantially interfered with the right-of-way.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding interest and costs awarded following the expropriation of its lands by the respondent City.

The Board had calculated statutory interest based on the appellant's net interest in the lands after deducting an outstanding mortgage, and awarded costs against the appellant from the date of a Rule 49 settlement offer that exceeded the final compensation award.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation of the Expropriations Act regarding both the interest calculation and the costs award to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant purchased a home constructed by the respondent in 1997.

Mould was discovered in 2002 due to faulty construction and water leakage.

The mould was remedied and the house was sold without loss in value.

The appellant claimed damages for psychological and emotional injuries and out-of-pocket expenses.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the psychological injuries were too remote and not reasonably foreseeable.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in dismissing the claims for psychological and emotional injuries and that the contractual warranty limitations were irrelevant to the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly applied the test from Mustapha v. Culligan and correctly concluded that a person of ordinary fortitude would not have suffered the serious psychiatric injury claimed in these circumstances.

The defendant builder brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from mould discovered in a home purchased in 1997.

The plaintiff claimed over $6 million for physical, emotional, and financial injuries.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mould caused his physical injuries or financial losses.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff estates brought a motion for a timetable and to extend the time to set the matter down for trial, which the court treated as a status hearing.

The action, a subrogated claim arising from an oil spill, was delayed following the deaths of both original plaintiffs and procedural missteps in obtaining an order to continue.

The court found the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay passable and concluded the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice, as the insurer had promptly investigated the spill.

The action was stayed pending a proper order to continue, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted further adjournments of three inter-related appeals concerning Director's Orders for three waste disposal sites in northern Ontario.

The adjournments were granted to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and await the outcome of related civil proceedings regarding an indemnity agreement.

The respondent purchased a hobby farm from the appellant.

The appellant failed to disclose an underground waterline supplying water to his adjacent property and other neighbours, and instead provided a statutory declaration on closing stating he was unaware of any adverse claims.

The respondent discovered the waterline later, causing business interruption.

The trial judge found the appellant liable for negligent misrepresentation and awarded damages.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding negligent misrepresentation despite an entire agreement clause, and in calculating damages.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal of a $25,500 damages award belonged in the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction because 'final order' in the Courts of Justice Act refers to the whole order, not just the appealed portion.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on negligent misrepresentation and damages.

Following a seven‑day civil trial concerning a prescriptive easement and negligent misrepresentation regarding a shared waterline, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $300,000 after obtaining a declaration that no easement existed and damages of $25,500 against one defendant.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party and that her Rule 49 offer justified partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court found the claimed fees and disbursements excessive and disproportionate to the result achieved, particularly given the plaintiff’s unsuccessful fraud and punitive damages claims and the large damages claim that was not proven.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57, the court reduced the fees by approximately 50% and disallowed certain expert and research disbursements.

Costs were allocated between the defendants in proportion to their responsibility for the issues at trial.