Jonathan de Vries

The appellant, Tek Holdings Limited, appealed an Order to Comply issued by the Chief Building Official requiring construction of a covered manure storage facility for a broiler chicken barn.

The appellant had initially obtained a building permit for an uncovered manure storage but was required to obtain a minor variance after a planning department error regarding Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks was discovered.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variance on condition that the manure storage be covered.

The appellant subsequently constructed the facility with an uncovered manure storage, contrary to the revised permit.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Order to Comply was reasonable and within the Chief Building Official's authority under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The defendant, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiff, 1375175 Ontario Inc., on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged negligent issuance of an Order to Comply (OTC) and negligent maintenance of records related to the multi-tenant use of a commercial building.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover the claim more than two years before the effective commencement date of the amended claim, thus the claim was statute-barred.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff to amend a claim, originally a proposed class proceeding arising from the Westboro bus crash, to continue as an individual action.

The City of Ottawa brought a cross-motion to refuse the amendment and declare four new individual actions statute-barred.

The core issue was whether the proposed individual claims constituted new causes of action or were supported by facts pleaded in the original statement of claim, thus protected by the limitation period suspension under the Class Proceedings Act.

The court found that the original pleading contained sufficient material facts to support claims of operator negligence and vicarious liability, in addition to direct and systemic negligence.

Consequently, these claims were protected from the running of the limitation period by s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff's motion to amend was granted, and the individual claims were allowed to proceed.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The applicant, Carol Bellamy, a co-Estate Trustee, brought an application for the passing of accounts for the Estate of Jean Ann Ruston.

The respondent, Carolyn Thompson, the sole beneficiary and co-Trustee, raised numerous objections regarding excessive payments to Carol and her husband, Ron Bellamy, and mismanagement of estate funds, including speculative investments.

The court dismissed Carol's defenses of laches and acquiescence, finding her fiduciary duties to the sole beneficiary paramount.

The court ordered Carol to repay $318,918.27 to the Estate for excessive compensation and reimbursements, and directed several other objections to proceed to trial due to insufficient documentation and credibility issues.

The plaintiff, Catherine Patrick, was injured in a single-car accident in February 2014.

She initially sued Southwest Middlesex, but later sought to add The Corporation of the County of Middlesex ("Middlesex County") as a defendant.

Middlesex County moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide timely statutory notice under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and that her claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that Patrick did not establish a "reasonable excuse" for the more than two-year delay in notifying Middlesex County, particularly for the initial 16-month period of inaction before retaining counsel.

As satisfying the "reasonable excuse" prong of s. 44(12) is mandatory, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Middlesex County.

This decision resolves the issue of costs following an unsuccessful motion by some respondents (Kortes and Adeline) to stay an application challenging two wills.

The applicants (Gerritse and Teffer) successfully resisted the stay.

The court awarded costs to the applicants, fixed at $28,991.00, on a partial indemnity basis.

A blended costs award was ordered, with one-third ($9,663.66) to be paid by the unsuccessful moving parties (Kortes and Adeline) and two-thirds ($19,327.34) to be paid out of the Estate.

The court declined to address costs related to the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation, as that appointment was made on consent.

The court issued a corrigendum to correct and add the names of counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants in the original Reasons for Judgment issued on December 7, 2016.

All other contents of the original judgment remain unchanged.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add Middlesex County as a defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim involving alleged negligent road maintenance.

The motion was brought after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff argued misnomer and discoverability.

The court rejected the misnomer argument because Middlesex County did not have notice of the claim within the limitation period.

However, the court granted leave to amend based on discoverability, finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of due diligence to raise a triable issue as to whether the claim against the County was discoverable earlier.

The court also held that the plaintiff's alleged failure to provide timely statutory notice under the Municipal Act should be resolved on a full evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic after the minivan he was a passenger in was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Ellis at an intersection.

Ellis had stopped at a stop sign rather than the faded stop line, resulting in poor sightlines, and pulled into the intersection when it was unsafe.

The court found the City of Hamilton 50% liable for failing to maintain the stop line, which created an unreasonable risk of harm.

Ellis was found 50% liable for failing to ensure it was safe to proceed.

Claims against the driver of the minivan were dismissed.

The defendants, a treating psychologist and a children's aid society, brought motions under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs' action arose from a child protection investigation and criminal charges based on allegations of abuse made by a child previously adopted by the plaintiffs.

The court struck the claim against the psychologist without leave to amend, finding she owed no duty of care to the parents of her patient and was statutorily obligated to report suspected abuse.

The court also struck the adult plaintiffs' claims in negligence and various intentional torts against the children's aid society defendants, finding no duty of care was owed to the parents during a child protection investigation.

Leave to amend was granted for claims of misfeasance in public office and Charter damages.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a single-vehicle rollover accident on a rural gravel road.

She sued the municipality, alleging the accident was caused by the road's poor state of repair, specifically the presence of potholes and loose gravel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the road was in a reasonable state of repair for a rural gravel road and that the potholes did not constitute a state of disrepair.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the accident was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own negligence, including driving at an excessive speed and overcorrecting after encountering an oncoming vehicle.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt, which would have resulted in a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence had the municipality been found liable.

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old driver, was injured in a single-vehicle accident after failing to stop at a stop sign at a rural intersection and crashing into a concrete abutment.

The plaintiff had consumed alcohol prior to the crash.

The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair because it lacked warning signs for a change in road alignment (an 'offset' intersection).

The court found that the intersection posed a hidden hazard and required a warning sign in addition to the stop sign.

The court apportioned liability 50% to the municipality for failure to warn and 50% to the plaintiff for failing to stop and driving after consuming alcohol.