J.D. Ground

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it liable for rent arrears and property damage under a commercial lease.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to discount damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the lease acknowledgment or assessing the evidence of damage to the premises.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant argued that the application for vacant possession for the purchasers' own use was improper, that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses, and that the application was made in bad faith.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's grounds did not raise any valid questions of law, as the statute permits possession for purchasers' own use, the evidentiary rulings were not errors of law, and good faith is a question of mixed fact and law.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The moving parties brought a motion to have four applications heard together.

The applications all involved the interpretation of section 13 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding 'advice or recommendations' in different factual contexts.

The court found that hearing the applications together would be in the interests of justice and would not cause substantial prejudice or inconvenience.

The motion was granted and the applications were ordered to be heard together.

The appellant land developers appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board refusing to award disturbance damages for lost developer's profit following the expropriation of a parcel of land by the respondent school board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Dell Holdings to find that disturbance damages are not limited to the expropriated lands and can include the natural and reasonable consequences of the expropriation, such as lost profit on a subdivision development that was virtually complete.

The court awarded the agreed quantum of $437,000 in disturbance damages and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal.

The defendants appealed an order directing that a certification motion in a class proceeding be heard in Hamilton based on the balance of convenience.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that rule 37.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to determine the venue of a certification motion and that section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 does not oust that rule.

The court further held that the balance of convenience is not the proper test for granting leave under rule 37.03(4) to hear a motion elsewhere.