John Ewart

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, a home builder and its principal, alleged various torts and statutory breaches against Tarion Warranty Corporation, several municipalities, CTV News, and a public health authority, claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The court found the 40-page statement of claim to be unwieldy, repetitive, and deficient in pleading the necessary material facts for the alleged causes of action.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, dismissing claims based on criminal statutes, the Competition Act, the Security of Information Act, intentional interference with economic relations, discrimination, and harassment without leave to amend.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to move for an order permitting them to deliver a fresh statement of claim restricted to specific causes of action, including injurious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligence, provided they can properly plead the required material facts.

The plaintiffs, who are farmers, entered into a three-year lease agreement to farm the defendant's land.

The defendant repudiated the lease after the first year, claiming she signed it under duress and that the plaintiffs breached the agreement by failing to provide specific fertilizer application records.

The court rejected the duress defence, finding the defendant signed voluntarily and allowed the plaintiffs to farm the land for eight months.

The court also found that the alleged breach regarding fertilizer records did not amount to substantial non-performance justifying termination.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for lost profits for the remaining two years of the lease.

The respondents commenced construction of an addition to their home without a building permit.

After a stop work order was issued, they applied for a permit but were refused due to deficient drawings.

The Township applied for an injunction and demolition order.

Despite multiple opportunities over four years, including a review by the Building Code Commission which confirmed the drawings were deficient, the respondents failed to submit compliant drawings.

The court granted the Township's application for an injunction and demolition order, but stayed the order for 90 days to give the respondents one final opportunity to comply.

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.