3 total
Appellant awarded $25,000 in costs for successful appeal below.
Following a successful appeal from a Superior Court judgment, the Court of Appeal determined costs for the proceedings below.
After reviewing both parties' submissions, the court awarded costs of $25,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to the appellant, payable forthwith.
The appeal was allowed because the trial judge improperly relied solely on ambiguous pleadings.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Danjing Han, setting aside a trial judgment that had awarded the respondents $302,000 for civil deceit and unjust enrichment.
The appellate court found that the trial judge erred in relying solely on admissions in the Statement of Defence to establish liability, without making any factual findings or determining the elements of the causes of action.
The court concluded that the admissions did not amount to admissions of liability and that the respondents had not met their burden of proof.
Appeal of municipal by-law closing shoreline road allowance dismissed for lack of Tribunal jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed a municipal by-law that approved the closing and sale of a shoreline road allowance to an abutting property owner.
The Tribunal initiated a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.
The appellant argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under various provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 to review and deny the by-law.
The Tribunal found that it does not have free-standing jurisdiction to determine the validity or legality of a municipal by-law, nor does it have supervisory jurisdiction over a municipality's legislative competence or procedural fairness.
The Tribunal concluded that the proper forum to challenge the validity of the by-law is the Superior Court of Justice under section 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
