Gabrielle Kimberly Kramer

The appellants appealed three Director's Orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment regarding environmental issues at three waste disposal sites.

The parties negotiated a resolution regarding the Margach Waste Disposal Site and submitted a Draft Interim Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Interim Order on consent, which included a stay of the financial assurance requirements and an extension of deadlines for implementing closure plan requirements, finding that the statutory bars to a stay under the Environmental Protection Act did not apply.

The appellants appealed three Director's Orders regarding environmental issues at three waste disposal sites.

The parties negotiated an interim agreement regarding the third order (the Dryden Order), which included a stay of the requirement to provide financial assurance pending the outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal approved the interim agreement and granted the stay on consent, noting that the statutory bars to a stay did not apply and that the appellants' commitments addressed the Director's concerns.

The appellant appealed a judgment determining title to certain former railway lands.

The application judge found the respondent had fee simple title to Part 1 and title to Part 15 subject to the appellant's possessory claim, directing a trial on whether the possessory claim was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's decision to require a trial for the limitation issue due to credibility concerns regarding discoverability, nor in her conclusion that the railway acquired title to Part 1 through legislated powers.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant subcontractor appealed a decision allowing the respondent's insurer to bring a subrogated claim against it for damages caused by the appellant's employee's negligence at a work site.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contract between the parties clearly placed the risk of loss on the appellant and that the appellant was not an insured under the respondent's insurance policy.

The Industry Coalition for Environmental Fairness Inc. (ICEF) and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision.

The underlying judicial review concerned the test for leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights regarding certificates of approval issued to a cement company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that ICEF lacked a direct interest and would not make a useful contribution without causing delay, and that the Environmental Commissioner's proposed intervention would not provide a different perspective from the existing parties and would likely prejudice them.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the City of Windsor for the cost of restoring municipal roads to grade after Canadian Pacific Railway abandoned a railway line.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the railway's obligation to maintain the bridges continued after abandonment, and that the damages awarded represented the least cost to restore the roads to grade.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the ownership of lands under the Riverside Drive bridge and allegations of bad faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the road was a busy public road in the 1880s, the railway never intended to acquire the land under the bridge, and the road was a municipal street owned by the City.

The appellant's argument that the federal Crown owned the land was rejected, as the road was not an unopened road allowance laid out by a Crown surveyor.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants and respondents agreed that the court's previous statement regarding costs at first instance was erroneous.

The court received written submissions on the proper disposition of costs at first instance.

Given that the appeal reversed the partial summary judgment granted to the respondents, both parties were entirely unsuccessful at first instance.

The court set aside the costs order below and remitted the costs of the motions at first instance to the trial judge, who would be in the best position to assess their relative importance in light of the trial result.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent municipalities.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellants' claim that the expropriation of their mall lands for a new Toyota plant was illegal per se.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the expropriation price was below fair market value (constituting an illegal bonus under the Municipal Act), whether the expropriation conformed to the official plan under the Planning Act, and whether the municipality acted in bad faith.

The respondent was successful on an appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,987 plus disbursements and taxes.

The appellants argued the claimed rates and hours were excessive, particularly the attendance of two counsel and the time spent reviewing transcripts.

The court agreed that the hours claimed were excessive, the attendance of two counsel was unnecessary, and certain disbursements were not compensable.

Costs were fixed at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a Board decision that found it had no jurisdiction to hear a claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Board correctly found the land was voluntarily dedicated rather than expropriated under s. 1(1)(a), it erred in concluding that s. 1(1)(b) required a taking of land.

Section 1(1)(b) contemplates an action for injurious affection where no expropriation has occurred.

The Court also found the Board erred in its interpretation of the limitation period under s. 22(1), holding that time runs from the completion of construction when actual damage is discovered, not from a pre-construction opinion.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a full hearing.

The appellant school board expropriated a portion of the respondents' land for a school site.

The respondents sought compensation for the market value of the land and for lost developer's profit as disturbance damages.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded market value but denied the claim for lost developer's profit.

The Divisional Court reversed, awarding the lost profit as disturbance damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the school board's appeal, holding that lost prospective developer's profit is not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act, and restored the OMB's award.

The appellant challenged a municipal licensing bylaw regulating body rub parlours, arguing it had the effect of virtually prohibiting them due to a lack of available commercial space meeting the bylaw's criteria.

The application judge dismissed the challenge, finding the municipality properly assessed relocation opportunities and was not responsible for market conditions or landlords' unwillingness to lease to such businesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the municipality had no legal obligation to ensure favourable market conditions before exercising its statutory authority to regulate.