Anthony Wellenreiter

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owners reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal process.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving disputes over smoking, throwing objects from the terrace, pet waste, storage, and noise nuisances.

The respondents also agreed to pay $12,500 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The Tribunal issued the consent order under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The member, a professional engineer, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to inappropriate and disparaging comments made during a PEO Council election campaign.

The member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand to be recorded on the register for six months and publication of the findings without the member's name, noting the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and personal health challenges as mitigating factors.

The defendant Charlotte Marino, having successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing for no costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found Charlotte Marino entitled to costs but deemed the time docketed by her counsel excessive.

The court awarded Charlotte Marino $30,000 plus HST for fees and $13,531.78 for disbursements, to be paid by the plaintiff.

The court declined to award costs against a non-party.

This costs endorsement followed a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant Gerlandina Jones, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred.

The court considered Rule 57.01 factors and Rule 49 offers.

It determined that a defendant moving for summary judgment should be treated as a plaintiff for Rule 49 purposes.

The defendant was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of her Rule 49 offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $25,000 plus HST and $6,376.22 in disbursements.

The objectors challenged the City of Hamilton's Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 1 St. James Place under the Ontario Heritage Act.

They alleged procedural irregularities in the issuance of the notice and argued the property lacked cultural heritage value.

The Conservation Review Board found no procedural breaches, ruling that internal municipal procedures were outside its jurisdiction and that statutory notice requirements were met.

On the merits, the Board found the property met the criteria for design, historical, and contextual value under O. Reg. 9/06, as a rare example of 1930s experimental composite construction and its association with the Pigott Construction Company.

The Board recommended the property be designated with a revised Statement of Cultural Heritage Value.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision of the Fire Safety Commission that upheld an inspection order imposing conditions on open air burning of brush on his property.

The appellant argued the Commission erred in its interpretation of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act by not requiring proof that a fire 'would seriously endanger' health and safety before imposing conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's interpretation of the Act was correct and its factual findings regarding the necessity of the conditions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.