E.J. Koke

The applicant, a non-profit environmental education centre, sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The respondent assessment corporation opposed the application, arguing the centre lacked a structured curriculum, regular students, and formal instructors.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the primary purpose of the centre, determined objectively, was educational.

The court held that a flexible approach to the definition of a 'seminary of learning' was appropriate, and the centre's workshops, symposiums, and experiential learning programs sufficiently constituted a focused educational agenda.

The applicant First Nation sought a writ of possession to remove the respondents from a property it purchased on the reserve.

The respondents argued the applicant's lawyers were in a conflict of interest, that the dispute must be resolved under the First Nations Land Code, and that only the Federal Court had jurisdiction.

The Superior Court found no conflict of interest, held that the Land Code did not oust the court's jurisdiction, and confirmed the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

The court concluded the respondents were trespassers and granted the writ of possession.

The plaintiff, an 18-year-old soccer player, suffered an electric shock from stray voltage leaking from a light pole at a municipally-owned sports field.

The shock was caused by internal damage to the pole's wiring resulting from a recent lightning strike.

The plaintiff sued the municipality under the Occupiers' Liability Act, claiming physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the specific nature of the electrical failure was highly unusual and not reasonably foreseeable.

The court concluded that the municipality had met its standard of care by adhering to regular inspection and maintenance protocols, and was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The respondent amicus brought a motion for leave to include the trial judge's final decision as fresh evidence in the appeal record, and for leave to serve the respondent with appeal documents by email.

The Ministry of the Attorney General, appealing the trial judge's earlier refusal to set aside the amicus appointments, opposed the fresh evidence request.

The court granted the uncontested request for email service.

However, applying the Sengmueller test, the court dismissed the request to admit the trial decision as fresh evidence, finding it would not likely be conclusive of an issue in the appeal.

The applicant suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting in severe cognitive impairments.

Shortly after his release from the hospital, the respondent, his former partner, secretly married him.

The applicant's sons, acting as his guardians, sought to annul the marriage, enforce a prior property settlement agreement, and obtain a non-communication order.

The court found that the applicant lacked the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature and responsibilities of marriage, declaring the marriage void ab initio.

The court also enforced the property settlement agreement, vesting sole title of the shared home in the applicant, and granted a permanent non-communication order against the respondent.

The mother brought a motion to change a joint custody order, seeking sole custody of the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

The father responded by also seeking sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the parents could no longer communicate effectively, rendering joint custody unworkable.

After an 8-day trial featuring evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's psychotherapist, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The court found the father provided a more stable environment, ensured regular school attendance, and fostered the child's extracurricular activities.

The mother's access was ordered to remain unsupervised, conditional upon her engaging in counselling to address her parenting skills and anger towards the father.

Claims for child support were dismissed due to the mother's limited income.

The applicant municipality and chief building official sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from operating an addiction recovery centre on their property.

The applicants argued the property was not zoned for institutional use, while the respondents claimed the facility qualified as a permitted 'Lodge' or 'Resort'.

Applying the modified RJR MacDonald test for public authorities, the court found a strong prima facie case that the use breached the zoning by-law, as the facility's primary purpose was health and welfare, not catering to the vacationing public.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

Following the successful summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' action due to the expiry of the limitation period, the successful defendants sought costs of $15,000 each.

The plaintiffs argued for a reduced amount of $10,000 each, noting the lack of settlement offers and the principle of proportionality.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57 and the principles from Boucher and Davies, concluding that the defendants' requested amount was fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $15,000 in costs to each defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligent construction of a cottage and retaining wall, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs experienced slope failure and retaining wall movement in 2009 and received an engineering report identifying the issue, but did not commence their action until 2013.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew the basic essential facts giving rise to a claim upon receiving the 2009 engineering report.

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

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily injury after his vehicle drifted into oncoming traffic.

He also pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine.

The jury acquitted him of impaired driving charges.

The sentencing judge applied the Ferguson principles to determine the facts consistent with the jury's verdict, rejecting the defence theory of syncope and finding the accused's decision to drive with methamphetamine in his system to be an aggravating factor.

The accused was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, a $650 fine, and a 3-year driving prohibition.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against her insurance company and broker after a nine-day trial, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff made unsupported allegations of bad faith and failed to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced costs award based on the principle of proportionality, given the modest size of her claim.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that doing so would require the plaintiff to pay costs totalling more than four times the value of her claim.

Applying the principle of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing costs at $175,000 for the insurer and $115,000 for the broker.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance to purchase a property based on a right of first refusal agreement signed by her late husband and his brothers.

The defendant purchaser brought a cross-motion to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the agreement unambiguously granted the right of first refusal only to the 'parties' (the brothers), not to 'family members' like the plaintiff.

The court declined to admit parol evidence of intention and held that the doctrine of privity of contract precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the agreement.

The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for security for costs regarding the appellant mother's appeal of a final custody and access order.

The trial judge had granted joint custody with primary residence to the mother, but carved out exclusive decision-making areas for the father and granted him generous unsupervised access.

The mother appealed, alleging bias, misapprehension of evidence, and procedural unfairness regarding the trial judge's appointment of amicus curiae.

The court found the appeal raised no arguable errors of law and merely challenged findings of fact and credibility.

Concluding the appeal was a waste of time, a nuisance, and an abuse of process, and noting the mother's lack of assets in Ontario, the court ordered her to post $25,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff's property was damaged when a dam on a neighbouring property broke, releasing a deluge of water.

The defendant insurer denied coverage under the plaintiff's comprehensive homeowners policy, citing exclusions for ground water, surface water, and general water damage.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The court found that the initial grant of coverage applied and that the ground and surface water exclusions did not.

While the general water exclusion applied, the court held that the exceptions for the sudden and accidental escape of water from a sewer or drain, and for water entering through an opening created suddenly and accidentally, brought the loss back into coverage.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

The applicants achieved substantial success in an application and cross-application regarding an easement and right-of-way dispute, which was largely settled on the eve of the hearing.

The court considered the costs of the applications.

Applying Rule 57 and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicants costs fixed at $48,105.58 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted the applicants' generous settlement offers and the respondents' lack of cooperation and diligence throughout the litigation.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for property damage insurance coverage.

The motion judge initially granted summary judgment based on a coverage exclusion, but the Court of Appeal reversed this finding and remitted the limitation period issue back to the motion judge.

The motion judge dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the limitation period, finding that disputed conversations between the plaintiff and her insurance broker raised significant credibility issues that required a trial.

The applicant estate trustee sought directions on whether the respondent's claim against the estate for $150,000, pursuant to a separation agreement, was statute-barred.

The deceased had failed to maintain life insurance as required, creating a first charge on the estate.

The estate trustee withheld information from the respondent that the life insurance policies had lapsed, delaying the respondent's discovery of her claim.

The court held that while the two-year limitation period under s. 38 of the Trustee Act applied, it was tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment due to the estate trustee's unconscionable conduct in withholding material facts.

The respondent's claim was therefore permitted to proceed.

Following a successful trial judgment in a fire loss subrogated claim, the plaintiff sought costs of $222,804.

The plaintiff had served a pre-trial offer to settle for $625,000, which was significantly beaten by the $810,016.75 judgment, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The defendant argued for a reduction based on a strict percentage of actual fees billed.

The court rejected the defendant's mathematical approach, finding the plaintiff's counsel's discounted hourly rates reasonable and the time spent appropriate given the complexity of the case.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff's construction contract claims were dismissed and the defendant was awarded damages on its counterclaim, the court determined costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant, noting the complexity of the issues, the amount at stake, and the defendant's success, but declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the defendant's counterclaim was only partially successful and poorly documented.

The plaintiff, an elderly widow, sought to set aside two property transfers that gave her son, the defendant, an interest in her home property.

The plaintiff alleged she did not understand the nature of the documents she signed and was subject to undue influence.

The defendant counterclaimed for an interest in the property based on unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel, citing his contributions to expanding a workshop on the property.

The court found the transfers void due to non est factum, mistake, and undue influence, restoring the plaintiff as sole owner.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because he did not come to the court with clean hands, having engaged in unconscionable conduct by secretly transferring the property and refusing to return it.