John David Goudy

The appellant municipality appealed a Drainage Referee's order denying it costs and sought a declaration that a referee who conducts a pre-hearing cannot preside at the hearing.

The respondent landowners cross-appealed the Referee's finding that a proposed drainage project was an 'improvement' under the Drainage Act rather than a new drainage works requiring a petition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the costs award and holding that a declaration was unnecessary given existing rules.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Referee correctly distinguished prior case law and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the project was an improvement despite an increase in capacity.

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

The appellant purchased a property formerly owned by a library board, which was subject to a registered restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use.

The registered covenant failed to identify the benefitted lands, rendering it legally unenforceable.

The respondent, owner of the adjacent lands, successfully applied to a motion judge to rectify the Land Titles Registry to include the benefitted lands.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the rectification, holding that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice of the benefitted lands.

The court emphasized that constructive notice is insufficient to defeat a registered interest under the Land Titles Act, and the appellant was entitled to rely on the registry's mirror and curtain principles.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County of Perth's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 193, which sought to allow the creation of five non-farm residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that the amendment was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as the existing dwellings were not rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused to approve the amendment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike evidence tendered by the defendant in advance of the penalty phase of a contempt trial.

The defendant sought to introduce fresh engineering evidence to argue that the original judgment regarding surface water drainage was based on incorrect factual findings.

The court granted the motion and struck the evidence, finding that the affidavits contained improper argument and hearsay, failed to comply with expert report rules, and did not meet the test for fresh evidence.

Furthermore, the court held that allowing the evidence would permit a collateral attack on the final judgment, violate issue estoppel, and constitute an abuse of process.

During a case conference in an ongoing contempt proceeding, the defendant indicated an intention to bring a motion for a new trial and to admit fresh evidence.

The plaintiff objected, characterizing the proposed evidence as a collateral attack on a prior unappealed judgment.

The court vacated the upcoming trial dates and set a timetable for the plaintiff to bring a motion to strike the disputed evidence before the trial continues.

The applicant, a charitable non-profit corporation, sought a declaration that a portion of its property leased to a day school was exempt from municipal taxation under paragraph 5 of s. 3(1) of the Assessment Act.

The applicant argued that if it occupied the space itself, it would use it for the relief of the poor, thereby qualifying for the exemption under paragraph 12(iii).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory language requires an objective assessment of the owner's actual nature and operations, not hypothetical future uses, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate it was currently organized and engaged primarily in the relief of the poor or supported by public funds.

This endorsement addresses the settlement of a formal order following a liability judgment in contempt proceedings and outlines the schedule for a subsequent case conference and trial continuation.

The court finalized the order proposed by the plaintiff with minor revisions, noting the defendant's significant delay in responding.

A detailed timetable was established for the remaining issues, including purging contempt, penalty, and costs, with a strong emphasis on avoiding further delays given the defendant's nine-year non-compliance with a prior order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in civil contempt for failing to comply with a 2011 judgment.

The 2011 judgment ordered the defendant to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that the plaintiff's surface water drained across his property.

The court found that the defendant had installed a drainage pit but failed to connect it to the plaintiff's property or take other necessary steps to allow the water to flow, instead insisting the plaintiff was responsible for further work.

The court held that the plaintiff established the three essential elements of civil contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and declared the defendant in contempt, with the penalty phase to be scheduled later.

The applicant brought a motion to have her name redacted from a previously issued Condominium Authority Tribunal decision, citing concerns about privacy, potential abuse, and a lack of accommodation during the hearing.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, applying the open court principle and finding that the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating that anonymization was necessary to protect important interests, such as a reasonable apprehension of violence.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for unredacted copies of the AGM sign-in sheet, ballots, and proxies.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but maintained it was required by the Condominium Act, 1998 to redact information identifying other owners or units.

The Tribunal held that the corporation did not have discretion to provide unredacted records and directed the corporation to provide the redacted records upon payment of a reasonable production fee of $102.15.

No costs or penalties were awarded.

The appellant sought a declaration that a zoning by-law provision limiting gross leasable commercial floor area for a "community shopping centre" to 4,645 m² (50,000 ft²) did not apply to developments with five or fewer separate spaces for lease or occupancy.

The appellant argued that "community shopping centre" must be a type of "shopping centre" as defined in the by-law, which requires six or more separated spaces.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that "community shopping centre" was a distinct term from "shopping centre" and that the provision applied regardless of the number of units.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's contextual interpretation of the by-law in light of the Official Plan.

The Plaintiff, Wonderland Power Centre Inc., initiated an action against Post and Beam on Wonderland Inc. concerning a restrictive covenant on land previously sold by Wonderland's predecessor to the London Public Library Board.

Wonderland sought an injunction, a declaration that the covenant was binding, and rectification of the land register if it was unenforceable.

Post and Beam sought summary judgment dismissing the action and a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable.

The court found the registered restrictive covenant unenforceable due to its failure to identify the benefiting lands as required by the Land Titles Act.

However, the court granted Wonderland's request for rectification of the register, noting Post and Beam's actual notice of the intended restriction.

Wonderland's motion for an interim injunction was dismissed due to a lack of irreparable harm, and Post and Beam's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, with remaining claims for a permanent injunction and damages to proceed to trial.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a zoning by-law provision concerning the maximum gross leasable commercial floor area for a "community shopping centre" on its property.

The applicant argued that the 50,000 square foot limitation only applied if the development contained six or more separated spaces, based on the general definition of "Shopping Centre" in the by-law.

The respondent municipality argued that the limitation applied to any project irrespective of the number of units.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the definition of "Shopping Centre" did not apply to "community shopping centre" in the specific context of the by-law and Official Plan, and that the size limitation was intended to apply to the square footage of a structure accommodating a community shopping area, not based on the number of units.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that did not alter the approval.

The appellant withdrew the appeal on consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without costs pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered several motions.

The Tribunal granted requests for party, participant, and presenter status, and granted the Appellant's consent motions for a short adjournment and to allow two expert witnesses to testify by videoconference.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's request for a lengthier adjournment to gather additional evidence, finding it would jeopardize the statutory six-month deadline without meeting the necessity test.

The Tribunal also modified the Appellant's proposed issues list to clarify that the appeal is limited to concerns about contamination from substances related to the radionuclide decay chain, rather than general heavy metal contamination.

The plaintiff, London Medical and Dental Building Limited (LMDB), brought an action against Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 83 (MCC 83) and Gannon Medicine Professional Corporation (Gannon) for trespass, nuisance, breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

The dispute arose from access through LMDB's building (450 Central Avenue) to an elevator in an adjacent condominium building (440 Central Avenue), which was crucial for persons with mobility devices.

MCC 83 and Gannon brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss LMDB's action and, for MCC 83, to obtain declaratory relief on its counterclaim regarding access rights.

The court dismissed LMDB's action against MCC 83 entirely and dismissed most of LMDB's claims against Gannon, allowing only the unjust enrichment claim against Gannon to proceed.

The court found that the 1999 Agreement granted access rights to owners, occupants, and guests of the condominium, including patients of the commercial unit, and LMDB's purported termination of this agreement was ineffective.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the North Kent Wind 1 Project.

The Tribunal granted participant, presenter, and party status to various individuals and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's requests for an extension to serve disclosure, to have two witnesses testify by videoconference, and for a short adjournment of the hearing start date.

The scope of the appeal was defined to include both serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

A third party brought a motion to change venue from Toronto to Chatham in litigation arising from damage to telecommunications infrastructure.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including convenience of witnesses, location of the damage, and community interest.

Although some witnesses and the incident location were in Chatham, many damages witnesses and counsel were located in Toronto and the plaintiff had chosen Toronto as the forum.

The moving party failed to establish that the proposed venue was significantly better than the plaintiff’s chosen forum.

The motion to change venue was dismissed with costs.

The appellants own a property with a registered right of way over the respondents' lands to the edge of Chesley Lake.

The appellants built a pole dock on the lakebed at the water's edge where the right of way ends.

The respondents sued, arguing that using the right of way to access the dock was beyond the scope of the easement.

The trial judge agreed, finding the easement was limited to agricultural purposes and that accessing the dock was an overburdening use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the grant of the right of way was not confined to a particular use and that accessing the dock from the shoreline did not constitute an overburdening use of the right of way.