Graham John Rempe

The applicant towing company brought a motion seeking to prevent a police services board from executing a towing services contract with another bidder following a request for quotation process.

The board had disqualified the applicant’s bid as non‑compliant for failing to provide required documentation including a letter of credit in the bidder’s name, enforceable leases for equipment and pound facilities, and proper licences.

The court found that the deficiencies were substantial and that the board acted properly and consistently in enforcing the mandatory pre‑conditions in the procurement process.

As the bid was correctly deemed non‑compliant, the applicant lacked standing to challenge the contract award.

The appellant brought a class action against the City of Toronto and the TTC for business losses resulting from the construction of the St. Clair transit project.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the claims were in substance for 'injurious affection' and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that the Class Proceedings Act is procedural and does not confer substantive jurisdiction.

The Court also struck the appellant's remaining claim for abuse of public authority for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to proceed with the construction of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West, arguing it contravened the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court released a short endorsement granting the application and setting aside the City's decision to proceed with the project, with formal reasons to follow.

The court noted the urgency of the matter to avoid wasted construction costs.

The appellant challenged the authority of the City of Toronto to enact a by-law regulating the use of pesticides within the city under s. 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The motion judge upheld the by-law.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the broad and purposive approach to interpreting municipal powers applies to s. 130.

The court found that the by-law was enacted for purposes related to the health, safety, and well-being of inhabitants, and did not conflict with federal or provincial pesticide legislation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to certify a class action on behalf of 30,000 residents complaining of noise and physical pollution from a landfill owned by the respondent city.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the appellant established an identifiable class and common issues, he failed to demonstrate that a class action was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims.

The Court found that the common issues were negligible compared to the individual issues, and that alternative avenues of redress, such as a Small Claims Trust Fund, were available.

The appeal was dismissed.