James Ramsay

The appellant, a tenant in subsidized housing, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for damages and partially allowing the landlord's counterclaim.

The appellant had spent her own money to repair flood damage after the landlord refused to do so.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of her claim, agreeing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act as she discovered her right to sue more than two years before filing.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the counterclaim.

Although the appellant's affirmative claim was time-barred, she retained the right to use the landlord's breach of contract as an equitable set-off against the counterclaim for rent arrears.

The counterclaim award was therefore set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The City of Port Colborne sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which found that Nyon Oil Inc. had standing to appeal the City's refusal to amend its official plan and zoning by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and erred in finding Nyon was an 'applicant' under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine its own scope and reasonably concluded that the City acted as Nyon's agent in applying for the amendments.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of two orders made under the Building Code Act and moved to compel a building inspector to answer questions on cross-examination regarding an information sworn to obtain a search warrant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the search warrant information was irrelevant to the judicial review application, which concerned the legal validity of the initial inspection and orders.

The court directed that the application be heard at the next sittings of the Divisional Court.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review challenging the Crown's decision to withdraw criminal charges he had initiated as a private prosecutor.

The matter was transferred to the Divisional Court by a Superior Court judge.

Both parties brought a motion to remit the application back to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the application was criminal in nature and, pursuant to Rule 43 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules, should be heard by a judge of the Superior Court.