Gregory M. Mulligan

The appellant, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessed value of a grocery store property.

The Board had determined the current value of the property as development land but then drastically reduced the assessed value by applying the equitable principle under the Assessment Act, comparing it only to two other grocery stores.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law and rendered an unreasonable decision by failing to consider all points of comparison to determine 'similar lands' and by failing to properly apply the equitable principle.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default against them in a construction lien action and sought leave to file a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The plaintiff had noted them in default without prior notice, despite ongoing communications between counsel.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding they met the two-part test for setting aside default by acting promptly and providing evidence of a good defence.

The court also noted that the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, in failing to notify of the default, offended principles of advocacy and civility.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis until an offer was served, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The court found no basis in law or fact to award substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Considering the defendants' delay in bringing the summary judgment motion despite knowing the facts early on, the court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant, a police sergeant, brought an application for judicial review of a hearing officer's decision declining to recuse himself for alleged bias during a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicant had an automatic right of appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission once the penalty phase concluded.

The court reiterated that exceptional circumstances are required to justify early intervention by judicial review when an administrative appeal route exists.

The client brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of a Report and Certificate of Assessment regarding his former solicitors' legal accounts.

The solicitors brought a cross-motion for judgment based on a settlement agreement where the defendant in the underlying action agreed to pay the assessed costs.

The court found no special circumstances that would deprive the assessment officer of jurisdiction and upheld the assessment officer's findings.

The client's motion was dismissed, and the solicitors' cross-motion was granted, resulting in a judgment for the assessed amount of $125,602.83.

The plaintiff sued a fraternal organization and several of its members.

The parties negotiated a settlement, but the plaintiff unilaterally settled with the US defendants and purported to withdraw from the settlement with the Ontario defendants just before a convention, citing delays in receiving signed documents and funds.

The Ontario defendants brought a motion to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not made a deadline an essential term of the agreement and suffered no prejudice, as he had already achieved his primary goal of reinstatement through the US settlement.

The offender was convicted of armed robbery of a pharmacy, assault with a weapon, wearing a mask, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offender struck the pharmacist with a handgun and stole opioids.

The court considered the offender's youth, criminal record, and the vulnerability of pharmacies.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, consisting of 5.5 years for robbery, concurrent sentences for assault and wearing a mask, and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the firearms prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The applicant, charged with production and possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 54 months.

Applying the transitional framework from R. v. Jordan, the court deducted significant periods of defence delay caused by the applicant repeatedly changing counsel, waiving s. 11(b) rights, and re-electing his mode of trial.

The net delay was calculated at approximately 24.5 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court trials.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to several offences, including break and enter to steal a firearm, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

Following the theft, the accused crashed the stolen motorcycle and sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.

The accused brought a Charter challenge arguing that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2)(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, given his medical condition and vulnerability in custody.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the one-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused or in reasonable hypothetical scenarios.

The court imposed a global sentence of one year imprisonment, noting the correctional facility could accommodate the accused's medical needs.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of a firearm while prohibited, following a robbery at a pharmacy where opioids were stolen.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's post-offence conduct of demanding a ride and threatening a witness near the scene shortly after the robbery.

The court found that the Crown proved the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, despite the weapon not being recovered, the court inferred from the witnesses' observations and the accused's conduct that the weapon was a real firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all four counts.

The accused was charged with three counts of trafficking Fentanyl and three counts of using a forged document.

The charges arose from a scheme where a medical secretary created fake electronic prescriptions for Fentanyl, which were then filled at pharmacies and sold on the street.

The Crown alleged the accused used his own health card information to fill fraudulent prescriptions in his name.

The accused, representing himself, denied involvement and claimed his wallet had been lost.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and Vetrovec principles to assess credibility, ultimately rejecting the accused's evidence and accepting the testimony of a co-conspirator.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking the production of various documents from the defendant insurer, including an independent claims adjuster's file, the Peel Mutual Insurance Company file, and the Dutton Brock LLP file, along with a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The defendant claimed solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege over many of the requested documents.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the Dutton Brock file was protected by solicitor-client privilege and the Peel Mutual claims notes were protected by an enlarged definition of litigation privilege, as the current action against the insurer was considered to be "essentially the same legal combat" as the prior action against the insured, as per the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice).

The plaintiff, Sky High Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc., brought a motion for an interim order under Rule 44 for the return of three pieces of equipment from the defendant, Scott Bennett.

The equipment was initially delivered to the defendant for storage, and while discussions about a potential purchase occurred, no written agreement was finalized.

The court found a triable issue regarding whether a purchase agreement was ever reached and that the plaintiff failed to establish unlawful detention by the defendant, a prerequisite for relief under Rule 44.01.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendant.

The defendant Town achieved divided success on its summary judgment motion against the plaintiff.

Both parties sought costs of the motion.

The plaintiff had submitted an offer to settle that exactly matched the outcome of the motion.

The court awarded the defendant its costs up to the date of the offer, and the plaintiff its partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court ordered a net costs award of $2,500 in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their summary judgment motion.

The defendant, as the successful party on that motion, sought substantial or partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, citing that the merits were not yet adjudicated, work product would be used at trial, credibility issues remained, and they still had a reasonable chance to prevail.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the case warranted reserving costs to the cause, as the ultimate outcome depended on credibility at trial.

The defendant's request for immediate costs was dismissed, and costs were ordered in the cause.

The defendant Town brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss parts of the plaintiff's claim: damages for alleged breach of a mural maintenance contract and declaratory relief regarding a heritage building designation.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment on the damages claim, finding no efficiency in partial summary judgment in a simplified procedure case with conflicting affidavits and no cross-examination.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the declaratory relief, holding that the Ontario Heritage Act provides a complete code for such matters, which the plaintiff had not followed.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his guilty pleas to several offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against former intimate partners.

The offender had a history of escalating violence against domestic partners, often fueled by substance abuse, and committed a brutal assault on the day he was released from custody.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

Concluding that a lesser measure such as a fixed sentence with a long-term supervision order would not adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company, as a third party, brought a motion seeking an order to conduct invasive inspections of the plaintiffs' property to assess building deficiencies and repair costs.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing concerns about invasiveness and potential damage.

The court granted the motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the inspection necessary for the proper determination of damages.

The court emphasized that Stewart Title's undertaking to restore the property to its previous condition alleviated the plaintiffs' concerns regarding potential damage from the invasive testing.

Hydro One Networks Inc. sought unredacted accident reports from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for nine specific motor vehicle accidents and a broad-based order for all future accident reports involving Hydro One.

The OPP consented to provide the specific reports but opposed the broad order, citing obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court dismissed the broad-based application, finding that the Highway Traffic Act does not obligate the OPP to provide such information without a court order, given FIPPA responsibilities, and that judicial oversight is necessary for requests for personal information from non-parties.

The application for the nine specific reports was granted on consent.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce an offer to settle, which the applicant opposed, arguing that the offer had not been accepted.

The court found that the applicant's offer, which included a condition regarding a potential Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) debt, was not fully accepted by the respondent.

The respondent's partial acceptance constituted a counter-offer, meaning no consensus ad idem was reached on all essential terms.

Consequently, the respondent's motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.