Judie Im

The appellant municipality was successful on appeal and sought costs for the proceedings before the application judge and the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellant on a party and party basis.

Ontario was ordered to pay the costs of the application ($50,000), factum motion ($2,000), and appeal ($35,000).

Lac Seul First Nation and Northern Nishnawbe Education Council were ordered to pay the costs of the stay motion ($6,000).

No costs were awarded for or against Canada.

The appellant, a former Justice of the Peace, appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action against a Ministry employee.

The appellant sought reimbursement for legal expenses incurred defending sexual assault charges, claiming judicial immunity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the action was an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and barred by the limitation period, as the cause of action arose in 1999 when he first sought reimbursement.

The appellant municipality appealed a declaration that it was responsible for maintaining two roads leading to a First Nation reserve and an education centre following a municipal restructuring order.

The application judge had found the roads became municipal highways through statutory dedication under the Municipal Act and common law dedication by conduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Municipal Act provisions relied upon explicitly excluded provincial roads under Crown control.

Furthermore, the common law doctrine of dedication and acceptance could not apply because the public already enjoyed a statutory right of passage under the Public Lands Act, and the province had failed to use the available statutory mechanisms to transfer the roads.

Following the release of reasons for judgment, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

The respondent consented to an award of costs in favour of the appellant Board in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Crown appellants did not seek costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs in the agreed amount.

The plaintiff commenced two identical actions for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police and the Crown.

Both actions were dismissed by the registrar as abandoned due to delay.

Almost two years later, the plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal orders under Rule 37.14.

The master dismissed the motion, finding inordinate delay and deemed prejudice to the defendants due to the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and reinstated the second action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal and restored the master's order, holding that the master did not err in finding that the expiry of a limitation period gives rise to presumptive prejudice, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

The appellants appealed a decision rejecting their request for a declaration that an access road was a public highway and that the Township was responsible for its maintenance and repair.

The appellants argued that the road's dedication by Ontario and assumption by the Township were apparent from surrounding circumstances, including negotiations and expenditures.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that there was no actual dedication by Ontario and no clear and unequivocal assumption by the Township, as the Township had sought work permits and was compensated by Ontario for maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.

The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Director's Delegate cancelling its Certificate of Revival under the Business Corporations Act.

The Delegate found the certificate invalid because the mandatory consent of the Minister of Finance was not attached to the Articles of Revival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Delegate's decision was reasonable and that the appellant was afforded procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the validity of a sworn information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to decide whether extrinsic evidence was admissible because the material in the information itself established the year it was sworn, proving the limitation period had not expired.

The information was not a nullity.