John Martin Buhlman

The defendants moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered by the plaintiff over land in Mississauga, arguing that the plaintiff had no interest in the land, that there was material non‑disclosure in the ex parte application for the CPL, and that the plaintiff delayed unreasonably in seeking the certificate.

The plaintiff asserted that the parties had long contemplated the transfer of land for the construction of a Greek Orthodox church pursuant to agreements dating back to 1980.

The court held that the totality of the evidence demonstrated a reasonable claim to an interest in the land and a triable issue supporting the CPL.

The court further found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient disclosure on the ex parte motion and that the delay in seeking the CPL was reasonably explained.

Balancing the equities and the absence of demonstrated hardship to the defendants, the court concluded that maintaining the CPL was just.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a landowner regarding a Minister's zoning order and a declaration of provincial interest.

The Minister argued the application should be dismissed for delay or prematurity, or alternatively, that portions of the supporting affidavits should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no unexplained delay, concluding it was not a clear case of prematurity to be decided by a single judge, and leaving the evidentiary issues for the panel hearing the merits.

The respondent sought costs of $61,000 following a successful appeal regarding the Ontario Municipal Board's jurisdiction to order a joint board.

The Divisional Court denied the costs request, finding that the respondent caused unnecessary steps and lengthened the proceeding by failing to raise the jurisdictional issue at first instance or during the initial leave to appeal application.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to order a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act (CHA) for a proposed golf course and residential development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a joint board because the potential hearings under the Ontario Water Resources Act were exempt under the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OMB had the discretion under s. 24(2) of the CHA to refuse to order a joint board and made no error in exercising that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to order a consolidated hearing under s. 25(2) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The court found that the prerequisites for leave were met, as the correctness of the OMB's decision was open to serious debate and the matter was of sufficient importance.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeals were ordered to be consolidated with an existing appeal.

The appellants sought to enforce an Illinois arbitration award in Ontario against the respondents and to obtain judgment on contractual indemnification obligations.

The application judge enforced the award against the primary debtor but dismissed the application against the other respondents.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to enforce the arbitral award against the respondents because they lacked proper notice.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the indemnification claim, setting aside the dismissal and staying the application to refer the indemnification dispute to arbitration pursuant to the parties' agreement.

The defendant reported a spill of cooling tower water to the Ministry of the Environment.

A provincial officer telephoned the defendant to demand a written report about the spill.

The defendant refused, arguing that such a demand must be made in writing by a Director under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendant was charged and initially convicted of obstructing a provincial officer, but was acquitted on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that a provincial officer does not have the statutory authority to demand additional information by telephone, as such powers are reserved for the Director or must be exercised during a physical inspection.

The Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board to regulate farming practices versus municipal zoning bylaws.

The appellant consented to the intervention, while the respondent municipality opposed it.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor could provide a broader public interest perspective on the relative rights of the province and municipalities to control farming operations.

Leave to intervene was granted subject to conditions, including no addition to the record and no duplication of the appellant's arguments.

In an addendum to judgment regarding costs of an appeal, the respondents sought costs totaling $132,145.72.

The appellants opposed, seeking a stay of costs for one insolvent respondent, arguing for the application of the pre-2002 party and party costs regime, and challenging the hourly rates of junior counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay request, held that the new costs grid under O. Reg. 284/01 applies retrospectively to services rendered before January 1, 2002, and reduced the hourly rates for certain junior counsel.

Total costs of $122,998.02 were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants, holders of debentures issued by BCED, appealed a trial judgment finding that a series of corporate reorganizations and asset transfers did not breach a successor obligor clause in the trust indenture.

The clause prohibited BCED from transferring 'all or substantially all' of its assets unless the transferee assumed the debenture debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the asset transfers did not meet either the quantitative or qualitative threshold to constitute 'all or substantially all' of BCED's assets.

The Court also found that a subsequent guarantee and foreclosure did not constitute a prohibited 'transaction' under the trust indenture, as the indenture expressly permitted BCED to incur and secure senior indebtedness.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for losses allegedly sustained due to misrepresentations by a municipal solicitor.

The trial judge found no evidence of misrepresentation, largely based on the credibility of the appellants' principal, and concluded that reliance on the alleged misrepresentation would have been unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in these findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.