Georgia Tanner

A land developer appealed the dismissal of his civil action against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process.

The developer had sought site plan approval and variance applications for a property development, all of which were denied through administrative processes including the Committee of Adjustment and the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Rather than pursuing judicial review, the developer sued the City alleging impropriety and misconduct, seeking damages and costs.

The motion judge dismissed the action as a collateral attack on administrative decisions and refused leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reviewable error and no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision to refuse amendment.

The plaintiff, a land developer, brought an action against the City of Toronto seeking costs and damages after his application for site plan approval was denied and upheld by the Committee of Adjustments (COA) and the Toronto Land Appeal Board (TLAB).

The City brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action as an abuse of process, constituting a collateral attack on prior administrative decisions.

The court also found the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to bring the claim, as the property was owned by a corporation, and denied leave to amend the claim.

The defendant City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(b) and (c).

The plaintiff conceded the delay was inordinate but argued it was excusable due to lawyer inadvertence and a lawyer winding down their practice.

The court found the delay excusable, noting the plaintiff's consistent intent to proceed and that no delay was her fault.

The court also found no actual prejudice to the City, despite some employees having retired, as there was no evidence they could not be located or provide evidence.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed, and the action was ordered to be set down for trial by October 1, 2025, with no costs awarded.

The applicant, a retail appliance store, sought a declaration that it was permitted to remain open for in-person shopping during the COVID-19 grey lockdown stage in Toronto and Peel.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential business under O. Reg 82/20, either as a 'hardware store' or as part of the construction supply chain.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislature intended the term 'hardware store' to be given its conventional, everyday meaning, which does not include a store exclusively selling home appliances.

The court rejected the applicant's attempt to stretch the plain language of the regulation.

The applicant, a home appliance retailer, sought an interim injunction to allow its showrooms to remain open despite being ordered to close under Covid-19 public health regulations.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential 'hardware store' and would suffer irreparable financial harm if closed during the busy December retail season.

The court dismissed the request for interim relief, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and potential irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court held that the public interest in enforcing public health measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 outweighed the applicant's private economic interests at this preliminary stage.

Following the dismissal of an application regarding the removal of an illegally installed third-party rooftop sign, the successful respondent sought costs.

The applicant argued for no costs or a modest award, claiming the case involved issues of public importance.

The court rejected this argument, finding the legal issues straightforward and not novel.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $20,613.60, finding the amount reasonable for the hard-fought litigation.

The applicant sought to set aside a Notice of Violation issued by the City requiring the removal of a rooftop billboard sign.

The applicant argued the sign was a legal non-conforming use because a permit had been issued in 1959.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the original sign was replaced between 1978 and 1983 without a permit, and further substantial alterations were made in 2013 without a permit.

As the sign was never lawfully erected under the applicable by-laws, it did not qualify as a legal non-conforming use, and the City was not estopped from enforcing its sign by-law.

A self-represented plaintiff sought leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The original claim against the defendants sought damages totaling $350,000 but failed to articulate any recognizable cause of action.

The Superior Court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court quashed the subsequent appeal on jurisdictional grounds due to the monetary amounts involved exceeding its jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and imposed restrictions on future motions by the plaintiff without prior written leave from a panel.