Jenelle Westworth

The plaintiff, David Richard Reid, brought a motion to set aside the Registrar’s order dismissing his 2015 action for delay.

The court reviewed the history of related litigation between Reid and the Town of Bracebridge, including prior settlements, subsequent actions, and procedural steps.

Applying the contextual approach to the four-factor test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, the court found that Reid failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, did not show inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed and the Registrar’s dismissal order confirmed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Temagami Barge Limited and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel from an order restraining their use of property for 13 uses found to contravene municipal zoning by-laws.

The court upheld the application judge’s findings on legal non-conforming use, the treatment of expert evidence, and the appropriateness of proceeding by application.

The court also found no error in the award of costs to the municipality, noting that leave to appeal costs was not sought as required.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $25,000 to the municipality.

The appellants, Temagami Barge Limited and its principal, Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel, moved for a stay of a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The injunction prohibited certain commercial activities on their property due to violations of municipal zoning by-laws.

Applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay pending appeal, the Court of Appeal found a serious issue for appeal but determined that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as their evidence was vague and harm to third parties was generally irrelevant.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay, as the public interest in enforcing municipal by-laws outweighed the appellants' unproven claims of harm.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the appeal was directed to be expedited.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b), 25.06, and 25.11, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous or vexatious.

The self-represented plaintiff did not appear.

The court found the claim incomprehensible, lacking material facts, and failing to plead a viable cause of action, particularly against individual municipal employees without bad faith allegations.

The motion was granted, and the statement of claim was struck.

However, the plaintiff was granted one final opportunity to bring a motion to file a fresh, compliant statement of claim within 30 days, failing which the action would be dismissed.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant brought an application to quash a resolution and by-law passed by the respondent municipality to conditionally appoint a member to fill a potential council vacancy.

The vacancy was anticipated because a sitting councillor was running in a provincial election.

The court found that the Municipal Act requires a vacancy to actually exist and be declared before an appointment can be made.

The resolution and by-law were quashed for illegality as they were passed without jurisdiction.