4 total
Proposed expropriation of temporary and permanent easements for transit project found fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.
The expropriating authority sought to expropriate temporary and permanent easements over the owners' properties to facilitate a road widening and bus rapid transit project.
The owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act.
The Tribunal found that the proposed permanent easement for a hydro pole and the temporary easements for construction access and grading were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the expropriating authority's objectives.
The Tribunal recommended that the temporary easements include a fixed expiry date and specific details regarding permitted uses to provide certainty to the owners.
The Tribunal also recommended that the expropriating authority pay $200 in costs to each of the participating owners.
The court ordered insurers to defend an insured surveillance company against harassment and negligence claims, but affirmed the insurers' right to appoint defence counsel.
The applicant, a surveillance services provider, sought an order compelling its insurers to provide a defence to an underlying action alleging criminal harassment, conspiracy, and negligence related to surveillance, and an automobile incident.
The applicant also sought reimbursement of defence expenses and the right to choose its own counsel.
The court found that the negligence claims related to surveillance were not derivative of intentional torts and triggered the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy's duty to defend.
The court also found that the non-owned automobile (NOA) policy triggered a duty to defend for the auto claims, as the policy's language was broad and not limited to rental cars.
However, the court denied the applicant's request to choose its own counsel, affirming the insurers' contractual right to control the defence in the absence of a conflict of interest.
The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to a successful defendant in a personal injury action, emphasizing access to justice.
Following an unsuccessful personal injury action where a jury found no negligence on the defendant's part but assessed damages over $300,000, the court rendered a decision on costs.
The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs totaling over $485,000.
The plaintiffs argued for no costs, citing the exceptional "inevitable accident" finding and access to justice principles.
The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs from the date of their offer to settle, but significantly reduced the quantum to $184,000, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.
The court declined to award costs against the Family Law Act claimants and limited the award to Katherine Pyatt, emphasizing reasonableness, access to justice, and the specific circumstances of the case.
The court fixed the plaintiff's costs and disbursements and ordered the defendants to pay them equally following the acceptance of Rule 49 offers.
The plaintiff, involved in two motor vehicle accidents, accepted Rule 49 offers from two sets of defendants.
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate award of partial indemnity costs and disbursements, and their apportionment between the defendants.
The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $37,500 plus HST and disbursements at $45,000 inclusive of HST, and ordered the defendants to pay these costs equally, rather than proportionally to their settlement offers.
