Christopher J. Henderson

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action against the City of Toronto and its representative regarding property tax arrears.

The motion judge had found her claims were statute-barred and that the City was entitled to collect the arrears.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in his conclusions, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, and should not have granted summary judgment while her claim against her former solicitor remained outstanding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no risk of conflicting judgments.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a right-of-way granted by the respondent municipality in 1971 included the right to permit parking on the property.

The municipality argued the right-of-way only allowed for access and egress.

The court applied principles of contract and easement interpretation, considering the historical context and subsequent conduct of the parties.

The court declared that the right-of-way included the ancillary right to permit parking to access commercial premises, provided it was non-exclusive and did not amount to occupation.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment finding it owed a duty of care to a class of tenants to provide statutory notices of rent reductions following property tax decreases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipality's specific interactions with the tenants through a pilot project created sufficient relational proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care.

The court further found no residual policy reasons to negate this duty, as the claim was limited to a specific group and did not conflict with the municipality's statutory obligations.

The municipality's failure to send the required notices breached the standard of care.

Following a successful application by the City of Toronto to inspect a residential property for Building Code compliance, the City sought costs.

The respondents argued the City was unsuccessful on most of its requested orders.

The court rejected this, finding the City obtained the necessary inspection orders and was the successful party.

The court awarded the City $20,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the respondents' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The municipality applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992 for orders requiring property owners to permit inspection of a residential addition constructed without a building permit and to provide engineering reports verifying compliance with the Building Code.

The owners argued the City lacked authority to inspect without a warrant and that the requested relief violated their Charter rights.

The court held that s. 38 empowered the court to order compliance with the Act and that inspections were a necessary part of the statutory scheme governing building permits.

The owners could not rely on the dwelling status of the property to resist inspection where the construction had been carried out illegally.

The application was granted and the City was authorized to inspect the property and uncover portions of the construction if necessary.

The City of Toronto appealed a Divisional Court order certifying a class proceeding brought by a rooming house tenant.

The plaintiff alleged the City negligently failed to deliver statutorily-mandated rent reduction notices to tenants targeted by the Parkdale Pilot Project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no private law duty of care to this specific subgroup of tenants, and that policy considerations would not inevitably negate such a duty.