John Douglas Ewart

The plaintiff brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations regarding the construction of a floating dock and boathouse by his neighbors on a lake.

The neighbors had built the structure without municipal building permits or provincial work/occupancy permits, relying on the municipality's position that it lacked jurisdiction over Crown lands and the province's position that floating structures were exempt.

The court held that the municipality's zoning by-laws and the Building Code Act apply to private individuals constructing on Crown lands covered by water.

Furthermore, the court found that the provincial regulations under the Public Lands Act require work and occupancy permits for such structures, rejecting the government's interpretation as absurd.

The appellant abandoned her appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario endorsed the appeal book, noting the abandonment and fixing the respondents' costs at $4,000 all inclusive.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages against the municipal employer but failed against several individual defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs consequences.

Applying Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of his settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter because the judgment exceeded the offer.

The court assessed reasonable hourly rates for counsel and reduced excessive paralegal time and rates while disallowing law clerk administrative costs.

The successful individual defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs for their defence.

A Sanderson order was granted requiring the municipal defendant to pay the costs of the successful individual defendants given the unusual and confusing factual circumstances that justified joining all defendants in the action.

The appellant, a former municipal building official, was wrongfully dismissed and subsequently charged criminally after the municipality reported alleged missing permit fees to the police.

After being acquitted, he sued for wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution.

The trial judge awarded damages for wrongful dismissal but dismissed the malicious prosecution claim, finding no initiation or malice by the municipality.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the high threshold for malice applicable to Crown prosecutors to a private defendant, and by making inconsistent findings regarding the municipality's conduct.

A new trial was ordered for the malicious prosecution claim and the quantum of punitive damages.

The appellant appealed a decision declining to quash a municipal by-law.

The municipality had failed to provide proper notification to the appellant that the by-law had been passed.

The application judge found no bad faith on the part of the municipality and no prejudice to the appellant, and thus declined to exercise his discretion under s. 273(1) of the Municipal Act to quash the by-law.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision rejecting their request for a declaration that an access road was a public highway and that the Township was responsible for its maintenance and repair.

The appellants argued that the road's dedication by Ontario and assumption by the Township were apparent from surrounding circumstances, including negotiations and expenditures.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that there was no actual dedication by Ontario and no clear and unequivocal assumption by the Township, as the Township had sought work permits and was compensated by Ontario for maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment regarding a cottage property lease, arguing for the first time on appeal that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the Residential Tenancies Act applied and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the equitable and monetary relief claimed, which exceeded the Board's jurisdiction.

The Court further declined to allow the appellants to raise the new statutory argument on appeal, citing the lack of a factual record, prejudice to the respondents, and the interests of finality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that work performed by the respondent was referable to an oral agreement to transfer properties to him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was supported by uncontradicted evidence and there was no basis to interfere.