Who is Geoffrey Paul Belch?

Geoffrey Paul Belch is an Ontario lawyer (Not Practising) with 2 court cases on record from 2018 to 2022.

What courts has Geoffrey Paul Belch appeared in?

Geoffrey Paul Belch has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Geoffrey Paul Belch handled?

Geoffrey Paul Belch has 2 cases on record from 2018 to 2022.

What judges has Geoffrey Paul Belch appeared before?

Geoffrey Paul Belch has most frequently appeared before Justice Alissa K. Mitchell, Justice A. Duncan Grace.

Geoffrey Paul Belch

2 total

Albert Bloom Limited v. London Transit Commission et al., 2022 ONSC 19

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by Eaton Industries (Canada) Company and The Corporation of The City of London against Albert Bloom Limited (ABL).

The motions dismissed ABL's claims as statute-barred.

ABL conceded entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, alleging duplication and excessiveness, particularly given Eaton's prior cost award in a related third-party motion.

The court found the claimed costs reasonable, noting the significance of the litigation, Eaton's efforts to avoid duplication, and ABL's failure to disclose its own costs for comparison.

SCJJan 19, 2022

Applicant Counsel

Danforth (London) Ltd. v. London (City), 2018 ONSC 4203

Danforth (London) Ltd. ("Danforth") sued the City of London ("City") for $53 million in damages, alleging negligence and failure to act fairly and in good faith regarding a proposed development and rapid transit (RT) routing.

Danforth's related company had applied for a zoning by-law amendment in 2015, but withdrew it after City staff requested significant street dedications for a then-proposed RT route.

In 2017, the City approved a different RT route that did not require these dedications.

Danforth claimed that an earlier routing decision would have allowed its development to proceed.

The City moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty of care was owed in negligence and that Danforth could not complain about the exercise of discretionary power as the application was withdrawn before a council decision.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the City's RT routing decisions and the pre-approval process were "core policy" decisions, immune from negligence claims, and that no private law duty of care was owed.

The claim of unfairness or bad faith also failed because no final decision was made by City council, and there was no evidence of bad faith in staff's earlier requests.

The court also noted statutory protection under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Applicant Counsel