John Alexander Olah

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Ontari Holdings Ltd. concerning a proposed business park development.

The appellant withdrew its appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act, intending to file a new application under the amended Act.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals for the remaining Subdivision Appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal released the previously scheduled 15-day hearing dates for February 2025 and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for March 2025 to await the outcome of the new application.

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 applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to institute an application for judicial review against the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority and the Attorney General of Ontario.

The proposed judicial review sought to challenge his 2018 convictions under the Conservation Authorities Act and a subsequent restoration order.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed judicial review was an improper collateral attack on previous decisions and an abuse of process, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by ONE Properties Limited Partnership concerning a draft Plan of Subdivision and a refusal by the Hamilton Conservation Authority to permit the relocation of a wetland for a proposed business park development.

The parties requested an adjournment to allow the appellant to commission a report on the wetland's hydrological features.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2024 and a 15-day hearing commencing in February 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a draft plan of subdivision and a refusal to permit wetland relocation, the Tribunal granted Party status to the City of Hamilton and Participant status to several individuals in the Conservation Authorities Act appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two appeals be heard together in a single phase, rather than consolidated, to ensure efficiency while avoiding prejudice to the parties.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to permit the relocation of a wetland, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed requests for Party and Participant status.

Environmental Defence was granted Party status over the appellant's request for deferral, as it demonstrated a genuine interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

Twenty-two individuals were granted Participant status without opposition.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and address the anticipated consolidation with a forthcoming draft plan of subdivision appeal.

The appellant purchased an electric vehicle and later discovered its range was significantly lower than advertised.

He communicated with the respondents for months before discovering they had secretly lowered the advertised range on their website.

The Small Claims Court dismissed his misrepresentation claim on summary judgment, finding it was statute-barred.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the dismissal, holding that the Deputy Judge failed to apply the proper test for summary judgment and that the date of discoverability and potential tolling of the limitation period due to the respondents' conduct were triable issues.

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.

The Crown brought a motion to quash a Notice of Appeal and Judicial Review Application commenced by the defendant's wife in her personal capacity.

The defendant was on trial for offences under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The wife, acting as his agent, had unsuccessfully sought standing as a party to the litigation and a mistrial based on reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding no statutory jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal under the Provincial Offences Act, and that the wife had no standing to bring an appeal in her personal capacity.

The request for judicial review was also quashed as the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction without a request for urgency.

The Crown brought an application before the Superior Court of Justice to quash subpoenas issued by the defendant for three witnesses in an ongoing Provincial Offences Act trial.

The court confirmed that a Justice of the Peace lacks jurisdiction to quash a subpoena, which must be done via certiorari in the Superior Court, though a trial justice may excuse a witness whose evidence is irrelevant.

Applying the test of whether the witnesses were likely to give material evidence, the court quashed the subpoenas for the conservation authority's head and solicitor, finding their proposed evidence irrelevant or a fishing expedition.

The court declined to quash the subpoena for the hydrology expert who had already testified, leaving it to the trial justice to manage his recall and document production.

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 a successful summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s personal injury claim arising from a ski accident, the defendant sought costs of the motion and action.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded due to his impecuniosity.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

While acknowledging the plaintiff’s low income, the court held that impecuniosity alone does not justify avoiding the normal costs consequences, particularly where the plaintiff rejected a settlement offer and attempted to leverage litigation costs during negotiations.

Partial indemnity costs of $63,000 were awarded to the defendant, with half payable immediately and the remainder stayed for 24 months.

The plaintiff was injured in a skiing accident and underwent a vocational assessment.

The defendant sought an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a further assessment by a vocational assessor of its choosing.

The motion judge granted the order, and the Divisional Court upheld it.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act does not occupy the field, and the Superior Court retains inherent jurisdiction to order an assessment by someone who is not a 'health practitioner' to ensure fairness and justice between the parties.