G. Edward Oldfield

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application to determine whether a municipal by-law restricts a normal farm practice.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a third party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the municipality.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application to determine whether a municipal by-law restricts a normal farm practice.

On consent, the Board ordered that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party and that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the municipality.

The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers (OGVG) brought a motion to be added as a party to an application by Great Lakes Greenhouses Inc. challenging a municipal by-law restricting supplemental greenhouse lighting.

The municipality opposed the motion.

The Board found that OGVG, as the regulatory body for greenhouse vegetable production in Ontario, was directly affected by the outcome and could make a useful contribution to the technical aspects of the case.

The motion was granted and OGVG was added as a party.

The applicant, a turkey processing plant, sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 that certain municipal by-laws restricted its normal farm practices.

The Board found that the applicant's activities, including truck movement, outdoor employee activity, and outdoor storage of by-products, constituted normal farm practices.

The Board ordered that the municipality's Property Standards, Yard Maintenance, and Zoning By-laws shall not apply to restrict these practices.

The Board also ordered that the Noise By-law shall not apply, provided the applicant constructs a noise attenuation barrier to mitigate noise impacts on the adjacent residential property.

Following the dismissal of the Township's motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment, the successful responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the Township to justify an elevated scale and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the principle of indemnity, complexity, and the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $8,000 inclusive.

Appeal of a trial judgment in a property dispute between cottage owners.

The trial court found that the appellants had trespassed on the respondent's water lot and issued a permanent injunction restraining them from entering the dry land portion.

The appellants' counterclaim for an easement was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellants raised new arguments regarding riparian rights, accretion, and the high water mark, which had not been argued at trial.

The appellants also challenged the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons and sought to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants were attempting to fundamentally alter their case post-trial and that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient.

The defendants were successful in having the plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck without leave to amend.

The two groups of defendants sought costs totaling over $41,000.

The court found that the plaintiff could not reasonably have anticipated such a high costs award at the pleadings stage.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no conduct by the plaintiff to justify it.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $10,000 for each group of defendants, for a total of $20,000.

The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that allowed the responding party's appeal and directed a zoning by-law amendment to permit an agricultural accessory building.

The municipality argued the OMB erred in law by failing to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, improperly invalidating official plan designations, and misapplying provincial policy statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's decision was narrow, fact-specific, and did not raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance to merit appellate review.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision on costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Huron Bay Co-operative Inc. (HBC), obtained judgment against Mar-Bo Farms Inc. but had its claim dismissed against individual defendants Andrew Philip Needham and Michael Robert Needham.

The court considered the defendants' non-Rule 49 offer to settle, which mirrored the trial's outcome regarding the individual defendants' liability.

The plaintiff sought a Sanderson order, requiring Mar-Bo to pay the individual defendants' costs, which was denied.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,600.00 to Andrew and Michael Needham, payable by HBC, reducing the requested amount by 50% due to the individual defendants' "unclean hands" and their weak set-off claims that prolonged the trial.

The appellants purchased a swine farm from the respondent but suffered a loss when they could not secure a supply of pigs due to adverse market conditions.

They appealed the trial judge's dismissal of their claim for damages, arguing breach of good faith, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract because the barn was empty on closing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had waived a condition regarding the supply of pigs and thereby assumed the risk of market changes.

The court also found no negligent misrepresentation due to an entire agreement clause and the appellants' direct discussions with the supplier, and concluded the contract did not require pigs to be in the barn on closing.

Two brothers disputed the ownership of a family farm corporation following the deaths of their parents.

The applicant, Barry Reid, sought to enforce a purported 1991 holograph will that he discovered in 1999, which allegedly left the farm shares to him.

The respondent, Robert Reid, argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court held that the exceptions under section 43(2) of the former Limitations Act for trust property retained or converted by a trustee did not apply, as the mother had taken the shares personally as the rightful beneficiary under a 1984 will.

Consequently, the six-year limitation period applied and expired in 2005, rendering the 2012 application statute-barred.

This was a standalone costs ruling following a trial involving a farm sale dispute and related counterclaim.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court considered the Rule 57.01 factors and found merit in the request, but held the offer was not truly one of compromise because it required total capitulation.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

In a dispute arising from the sale of a farm property with a large swine barn, the purchasers by counterclaim alleged negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with economic interests, and breach of the duty of good faith after discovering on closing that the barn was empty of pigs.

The court held the purchasers had been told there was no written hog supply contract and that the arrangement with the supplier was merely an 'evergreen' verbal arrangement terminable at will.

Applying the negligent misrepresentation framework and the Supreme Court's articulation of honest performance in Bhasin, the court found no actionable misrepresentation and no dishonest contractual performance.

The purchasers received the farm property they had contracted to buy, and the counterclaim for the loss on subsequent resale was dismissed.

The appellants, who immigrated from Holland to purchase a dairy farm in Ontario, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request to transfer an additional 25 kg of milk quota from the farm's seller.

The appellants argued their situation was unique and extraordinary because they had already sold their Dutch farm and committed to the purchase before realizing the full quota could not be transferred under DFO policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants proceeded with the purchase with full knowledge of the reduced quota and that their circumstances were neither exceptional nor outside their control.

The moving party sought reconsideration of a costs order arising from a garnishment motion related to enforcement of a judgment exceeding $400,000.

The court reviewed its earlier endorsement under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows amendment of an order containing an accidental slip or omission.

The court found that it had inadvertently failed to address relief sought in an amended notice of motion requiring a numbered corporation and an individual to disgorge funds received from a third party for the judgment debtor’s services.

Concluding the omission resulted from an accidental oversight, the court amended its prior endorsement to require payment of the amounts received, with interest, to the sheriff pursuant to the garnishment.

The motion to set aside the earlier costs order was dismissed.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s nuisance claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff argued that the action constituted a public interest test case and sought an order that no costs be awarded.

The court rejected that characterization, finding the litigation primarily advanced the plaintiff’s private economic interests and did not qualify as public interest litigation warranting relief from the usual costs rule.

Applying the partial indemnity principle and considering the parties’ circumstances and prior offer to settle, the court fixed costs payable by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant $24,767.02 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, plus HST.

The plaintiff, owner of a farm leased for raising rare breeding turkeys, sued the defendant, who purchased a neighbouring farm to build a commercial poultry barn.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's proposed barn would cause an actionable nuisance due to the risk of airborne pathogens, which prompted the plaintiff's tenant to threaten to terminate its lease.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's operation was abnormally sensitive and that the defendant's proposed use, which complied with all regulatory requirements, did not constitute an unreasonable interference or actionable nuisance.

The respondents brought a motion for costs against the applicants following the dismissal of the applicants' nuisance claim under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The respondents argued that the applicants' conduct was frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith, particularly because they proceeded without counsel and failed to establish the minimum threshold of disturbance.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants had acted respectfully and that their failure to meet the legal threshold did not amount to bad faith.

The Board reiterated that costs are rarely awarded and should not be used to discourage public participation.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for adverse possession over a 2.6-foot strip of land on the respondents' property.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in his factual findings and in applying the test for adverse possession, specifically regarding mutual mistake and the requirement to exclude the true owner.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and confirming that effective exclusion of the true owner throughout the 10-year period remains a requirement for adverse possession, even in cases of mutual mistake.

The parties were involved in an optometry practice that dissolved following the death of one of the partners.

After a 29-day trial, the trial judge found that an 'income partnership' existed, awarded damages for defamation, and made a no costs order.

Both parties appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the nature of the partnership, the defamation findings, or the costs order.