John Alexander Olah

The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.

The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.

The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.

The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.

Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order striking out a Superior Court proceeding that sought to appeal Provincial Offences Act (POA) convictions of Murray Brown, which were decided by a Justice of the Peace.

The appellants argued they had standing as the Greenworld Trust, the property owner, and that the Justice of the Peace exceeded jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Superior Court was the incorrect forum for appealing POA convictions (which should be appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice) and that the Greenworld Trust had no freestanding Charter right to assert in the Superior Court in this context.

The court also found no clear error in the costs award from the motion below.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application and an appeal related to provincial offence convictions.

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, sought costs.

The Authority requested substantial indemnity costs, citing unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and procedural abuses by the applicants/appellants.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that the conduct, while improper, did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct.

Instead, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to both respondents, considering factors such as responding to improperly brought proceedings and non-compliance with procedural rules.

The applicants/appellants brought an application and an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice challenging provincial offense convictions and sentence against Murray Brown.

The respondents, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, brought motions to strike out both proceedings.

The court found that the applicants/appellants lacked standing to challenge Mr. Brown's convictions and sentence, and that the appeal was brought to the wrong court (it should have been to the Ontario Court of Justice).

The court also determined that the application constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Provincial Offenses Court decisions.

Consequently, both the amended application and the appeal, along with the appellants' motion for interim relief, were struck out and dismissed.

This addendum addresses procedural issues arising from the Court of Appeal's March 28, 2018 decision allowing both appeals and a cross-appeal.

The court clarified that: (1) a "no order as to costs" provision can apply to both parties and interveners; (2) conclusions regarding statutory interpretation and waiver applicability should not be reflected in the formal order but only in the reasons; and (3) separate formal orders must be taken out for the merits decision and the costs decision, each bearing the date of its respective release.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing both appeals and a cross-appeal in two consolidated ski resort injury cases.

The court set aside the orders of the Superior Court and remitted the matters back for further proceedings.

The primary issue on costs was whether any party should recover their appellate costs.

Blue Mountain Resorts and the respondents argued for no costs award due to the novelty of the legal issues, while Snow Valley sought partial indemnity costs of $25,000.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the enforceability of liability waivers executed by ski resort patrons.

The central issue was whether the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or the Occupiers' Liability Act (OLA) governs the relationship between ski resorts and patrons who purchased ski tickets and executed waivers as a condition of entry.

The lower courts held that the CPA applied and voided the waivers.

The Court of Appeal held that the OLA and CPA conflict, and that the more specific OLA provisions prevail over the general CPA provisions.

The court allowed the appeals and held that the waivers were valid and enforceable.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing the appeal of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NCVA) against a Divisional Court decision.

The NCVA sought costs of $77,419.86 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and Divisional Court proceedings.

The court awarded reduced costs, finding the amounts sought for the leave to appeal motion and appeal hearing to be excessive relative to the Divisional Court costs.

The Gilmors were ordered to pay the NCVA $44,674.25 all-inclusive in total costs.

Homeowners sought to build a residence on property partially located on a floodplain designated as hazardous land under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority denied the application.

The Mining and Lands Commissioner, conducting a de novo hearing, upheld the denial based on safety concerns and the need to maintain the natural floodway.

The Divisional Court reversed, applying a correctness standard and finding the regulation did not presumptively prohibit development.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court, holding that the reasonableness standard applied to the commissioner's interpretation of the regulation and that the commissioner's decision was reasonable.

The plaintiff, Leanne Hunt, sued the City of Toronto, Northam Realty Advisors (landlord), and Pattison Outdoor Advertising Ltd. (sign owner) after sustaining a head injury from colliding with a billboard catwalk.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court dismissed the motion against Pattison, finding genuine issues for trial regarding negligence in sign design and the conflicting expert evidence on visibility and conspicuity.

However, the court granted summary judgment to the City of Toronto, ruling that its officials correctly applied the building code and by-laws regarding sign permits and were not negligent in interpreting 'pedestrian walkway.' Summary judgment was also granted to Northam, as it was not an 'occupier' of the leased sign under the Occupiers' Liability Act and therefore not responsible for hazards related to the sign itself.

Following jurisdictional motions that resulted in a stay of the action against several foreign defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs reflecting extensive counsel time for both preliminary litigation steps and the jurisdictional motions.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than matching the successful party’s actual expenditures.

The court reduced certain pre‑motion time allocations and adjusted hourly rates but allowed full time claimed for the jurisdictional motions due to their complexity and importance.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants in specified amounts inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The moving defendants sought a stay of an Ontario action arising from injuries allegedly sustained during a horseback riding excursion in Jamaica.

The plaintiffs did not attend the motion or file responding materials.

Applying the jurisdictional framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the foreign hotel and excursion operators lacked the necessary presumptive connecting factors to Ontario.

Although one defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because the defendant had no involvement in the excursion where the injury occurred.

Alternatively, the court held that Jamaica was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.