John Krawchenko

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Board to reaffirm a cost apportionment formula for shared social services that had been used since 2004.

The applicant argued that the governing regulation required a 'double majority vote' in every year the alternate formula was continued.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not require an annual double majority vote once the alternate formula was initially approved, and that the Board's decision was neither ultra vires nor unreasonable.

The plaintiffs appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the defendant security for costs.

The underlying action challenged an arbitration decision that ordered the plaintiffs to transfer a domain name to the defendant.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant unreasonably chose Ontario as the jurisdiction for the dispute, making the security for costs order unjust.

The Superior Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that the defendant's choice of Ontario, where the domain registrar was located, was reasonable given the plaintiffs' use of a privacy registration service.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought dependant support from the deceased's estate on behalf of a child, arguing the deceased demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own.

The deceased and the child's mother had a short-term relationship, and the deceased died eight months after the child's birth.

Post-death DNA testing confirmed the deceased was not the biological father.

The court found that due to the short duration of the relationship and the mother's concealment of the true parentage, the deceased's basic intention to treat the child as his own did not mature into a settled intention.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend the driver of a rental vehicle in a motor vehicle accident tort action.

The applicant had initially defended the driver based on a mistaken belief that he was covered under his mother's policy.

Upon discovering the error, the applicant asked the respondent, who insured the rental vehicle, to assume the defence.

The respondent refused, arguing the applicant was estopped.

The court found the driver was not insured by the applicant, there was no binding agreement to abandon the priority dispute, and promissory estoppel did not apply because the respondent suffered no detrimental reliance.

The respondent was declared the priority insurer with a duty to defend.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal council resolution directing staff to proceed with the development of an arena/event centre.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, arguing that a staff update report failed to include requested information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct by the council.

The court also noted that while an alternative statutory remedy existed under the Municipal Act, it exercised its discretion to hear the judicial review to avoid further delay in the long-standing planning process.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality for damages arising from a single-vehicle motorcycle accident caused by a surface discontinuity at an intersection.

The court assessed the plaintiffs' damages, including general damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act claims.

However, applying the four-part test for municipal liability under section 44 of the Municipal Act, the court found that while the roadway was in a state of non-repair that caused the accident, the municipality successfully established a statutory defence because the height of the discontinuity met the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a lakefront property.

The transaction failed to close after disputes arose regarding the vendor's non-resident tax holdback and the lack of legal access over a private road.

The court found that because neither party was ready to close on the agreed date, time was no longer of the essence and the contract remained valid.

Given the unique characteristics of the property, the court ordered specific performance, set a new closing date, and directed a mini-trial for the remaining damages claims.

Hong Lam, a former mutual fund representative, brought a motion to set aside a Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) Hearing Panel Order, which had been filed as a Superior Court Order under the amended s. 151 of the Securities Act.

Lam argued the amendment should not apply retrospectively to his pre-enactment conduct and that it impacted his substantive rights.

The MFDA argued it was an immediate application to an ongoing situation or, alternatively, a procedural change.

The MFDA also brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging Lam concealed property during an examination in aid of execution.

The court dismissed Lam's motion, finding that s. 151 applied immediately to the filing of the Hearing Panel decision, which occurred after the amendment, and was procedural in nature.

The court also dismissed the MFDA's cross-motion for contempt, finding that the MFDA failed to prove concealment beyond a reasonable doubt.