Justine Ajandi

The applicant purchased a property to operate a salvage yard and sought a declaration that its use was a lawful non-conforming use under s. 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The respondent municipality argued that the previous owner had discontinued the salvage yard use, thereby losing the non-conforming status.

The court found that the previous owner had continuously conducted salvage operations as part of its business, maintaining the legal non-conforming use.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's more intensive salvage operation did not constitute a wholly different use that would extinguish the non-conforming status.

The application for a declaration was granted.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their negligence action on summary judgment motions brought by the respondents.

The plaintiff was assaulted after exiting a chartered bus at a plaza in Barrie, sustaining a serious head injury.

The respondents operated a bar with a transportation and security system designed to prevent violence.

The motions judge found the case suitable for summary judgment and held that the respondents met the applicable standard of care.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge failed to properly articulate and apply the standard of care, effectively treating the plaintiff's contributory negligence as a bar to the claim.

The court held that the respondents owed a duty not to place the plaintiff in a position where foreseeable injury could occur, and that a trial was necessary to properly assess the standard of care and causation.

The defendants First Student Canada, David Ribble, 1853780 Ontario Inc. o/a Kee to Bala, and Ryan Zaroski sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from an assault on Ryan Turcotte.

The assault occurred in a parking lot after Turcotte disembarked from a chartered bus service provided by the defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, Liquor Licence Act, and general negligence.

The court found no evidence that the defendants failed in their duty of care regarding premises safety, bus security, or intoxication monitoring.

The court also rejected allegations that the defendants should have diverted the bus, prevented Turcotte or the assailants from leaving, or provided more explicit warnings, concluding that Turcotte was aware of the potential danger.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the moving defendants.