Jacob A. Polowin

The plaintiffs, representing Ottawa taxi plate holders and brokers, brought a class action against the City of Ottawa for its response to Uber's entry into the local market in 2014.

The court found that the City owed a duty of care to the taxi industry based on a long-standing, collaborative relationship and was negligent in failing to enforce its 2012 taxi by-law against Uber.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that the City's actions violated section 15 of the Charter or the Human Rights Code, finding no disproportionate discriminatory impact based on race or immigrant status.

The court also dismissed the claim that the City's taxi licensing fees constituted an unlawful tax, finding a reasonable nexus between the fees and the cost of services provided.

The appellant challenged the legality of a by-law passed by the City of Kingston imposing impost fees for water and wastewater infrastructure under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant argued that such fees could only be imposed under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA), or alternatively, if under the Municipal Act, 2001, then subject to the procedural protections of the DCA, including a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which the City could not provide.

The appellant also argued the by-law was illegal under s. 394(1)(e) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as water and wastewater are natural resources.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that municipalities have dual legislative regimes for imposing development fees, and the Municipal Act, 2001, provides a valid basis for the impost fees.

The court clarified that s. 15(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, does not require importing DCA procedural protections, as the two statutes confer different powers and have distinct review mechanisms.

Furthermore, the court found that s. 394(1)(e) does not prohibit fees for infrastructure that transports water and wastewater for ratepayers' benefit.

Following a decision regarding the sale of historic properties, the successful applicant Township sought costs of $170,647.85 based on an unaccepted offer to settle.

The respondent Society, a charitable organization, argued each party should bear its own costs.

The court noted both parties had engaged in blameworthy conduct but found the Township's offer to settle was reasonable.

Balancing the Society's charitable status with the costs consequences under Rule 49.10 and Rule 57 factors, the court ordered the Society to pay the Township's costs fixed at $75,000.

The Corporation of Loyalist Township sought to enforce an option to purchase two historic properties (Layer Cake Hall and Old Town Hall) from The Fairfield-Gutzeit Society for a nominal sum of two dollars each.

The Society, which received the properties from the former Village of Bath (predecessor to Loyalist Township) for preservation, had listed them for sale to the general public.

The Township argued this triggered its contractual option to repurchase.

The Society counter-applied, challenging the covenant's validity and enforceability, and seeking vacant possession due to the Township's alleged lease breaches.

The court found the Township's option to purchase was a valid contractual right, not an interest in land or a restrictive covenant, and was triggered by the Society's public listing of the properties.

The court granted specific performance to the Township, entitling it to purchase the properties.

The Township was also found to be in breach of its lease obligations by overholding, but this was deemed of limited consequence given the option to purchase outcome.

Neighbouring homeowners disputed rights over a 14-foot strip of land between their properties containing two abutting driveways.

The respondents claimed a prescriptive easement based on historical use by predecessors in title.

The application judge found the easement had been acquired through the doctrine of lost modern grant and ordered the appellants to remove a fence erected on their property.

The appellants appealed, arguing the requirements for a prescriptive easement had not been met.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the evidence did not establish use "as of right" and that the easement was not reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the dominant property.

A utility company and rural municipality disputed cost-sharing for gas pipeline relocation necessitated by municipal drainage works.

The utility sought 35% cost contribution from the municipality under a franchise agreement, while the municipality argued the utility should bear the full cost under section 26 of the Drainage Act.

The application judge held that section 26 of the Act overrode the franchise agreement's cost-sharing provisions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act does not prohibit contracting out of its cost-allocation provisions and that the franchise agreement's cost-sharing mechanism applies to drainage works undertaken by the municipality.