Karina Wong

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the moving party was ordered to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to each of the responding parties.

The appellant, a religious organization, appealed a decision affirming that its properties, primarily used for tai chi classes, were not exempt from property tax as "places of worship" under the Assessment Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings that the tai chi classes, while integral to the organization's religion, were not primarily "worship" from the perspective of the participants, and that a contemplative garden and sales area were also not tax-exempt.

The court emphasized an objective "primary purpose" test for tax exemptions, considering the intentions of participants, not solely the organizers.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party, payable jointly and severally by the moving party and the City of Toronto.

Following a successful motion to strike claims against an individual defendant without leave to amend, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded the individual defendant substantial indemnity costs for defending the action, as the plaintiff had made bare allegations of fraud based solely on his ownership of the corporate defendant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the pleadings motion itself, finding no reason to apply a punitive scale to a normal interlocutory motion.

The plaintiff insurer brought an action against an auto body shop, its owner, its manager, and an appraiser for fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and trespass following an investigation into fraudulent repair invoices.

The defendant auto body shop and its owner brought a motion to strike various claims.

The court struck the personal claims against the owner without leave to amend, finding insufficient material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability for the torts.

The court also struck the trespass claim against the auto body shop with leave to amend to plead vicarious liability, but declined to strike background paragraphs explaining the insurer's investigation.

The plaintiff insurer brought a motion to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial, effectively seeking to avoid the Registrar's dismissal of the action for delay.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal order, including the Reid factors.

Although the plaintiff failed to adequately explain its 19-month delay or prove inadvertence, the court granted the extension because the defendants failed to establish actual prejudice resulting from the delay.

However, due to the plaintiff's lengthy unexplained delays and conduct, the court ordered the successful plaintiff to pay the defendants $30,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The Ontario Provincial Police and the Crown appealed an order by Nordheimer J. determining that certain materials seized under a search warrant were subject to litigation privilege and therefore not potentially evidence in any criminal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal held that the order affected the enforcement or implementation of the search warrant, which is a judicial order made in a criminal investigation.

The court determined that judicial orders directed at the enforcement or implementation of a criminal order are themselves criminal in nature.

Consequently, no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal in a criminal proceeding under the Courts of Justice Act, and the appeal was quashed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and lacked sufficient detail.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged breach of contract, oppression, breach of good faith, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from a joint venture departure agreement and an alleged sham termination of a management contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims were pleaded with sufficient particularity and it was not plain and obvious that they would fail.