Kathryn J. Pirie

This decision addresses the costs of an application where the Town of Cobalt sought a finding that its aggregate extraction use was permitted under a zoning by-law, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Township of Coleman, as the successful respondent, sought full indemnity costs.

The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis, deducting expenses unrelated to the Superior Court application and ruling that a prior proposal by the respondent did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The Town of Cobalt was ordered to pay $85,000.00 in costs to the Township of Coleman.

The applicant municipality sought a declaration that its use of a property for commercial aggregate extraction was permitted under the applicable zoning by-law or, alternatively, was a legal non-conforming use.

The property had previously been used as a municipal park, with only small-scale, incidental extraction for municipal purposes.

The court found that the current large-scale commercial extraction was a difference in kind, not merely an intensification of the pre-existing use.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the extraction was deemed not to be a permitted use.

The appellant municipality appealed three Provincial Officer's Orders requiring it to address nuisance bears at three waste disposal sites.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement based on an Action Plan developed by the municipality.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directed the revocation of the orders, and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding custody, access, and support for his youngest child, Abbey, due to alleged parental alienation by the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the applicant's failure to comply with the order and her alienating behaviour.

Expert evidence confirmed severe parental alienation.

The court granted the respondent sole custody of Abbey, terminated the applicant's access except for therapeutic purposes, and reduced the applicant's spousal support, citing her lack of effort towards self-sufficiency and the need to protect Abbey's best interests.

The applicant brought an application under the Inter-Jurisdictional Support Orders Act seeking a child support order against a respondent residing in Quebec.

The court reviewed the materials filed in support of a provisional order and identified several deficiencies, including reliance on incorrect statutory provisions, failure to highlight relevant sections, use of Ontario child support tables instead of the Quebec tables, insufficient evidence of the respondent’s income, and inadequate documentation supporting claimed special or extraordinary expenses.

The court emphasized that provisional ISOA orders made without notice must be supported by clear and complete evidence to avoid rejection by the confirming jurisdiction.

As the materials were incomplete and unclear, the application was dismissed without prejudice to refiling.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The insurer refused to pay and sought permission to call three expert witnesses at the upcoming hearing, contrary to Rule 42.4 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code which limits parties to two experts without permission.

The arbitrator applied the criteria from Burgess v. Wu and R. v. Mohan, emphasizing the tribunal's mandate to provide a quick and inexpensive resolution.

Given that the amount in dispute was only $1,350, the arbitrator found the time and cost of calling three experts disproportionate and denied the insurer's request to call more than two expert witnesses.