Colleen Robertshaw

The moving party sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his application for an extension of time to appeal a speeding conviction under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act.

He had been convicted in absentia after failing to attend his trial due to illness and his paralegal's failure to appear.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of an extension of time to appeal in proceedings under Parts I and II of the Act, as established by binding precedent.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision upholding Inspection Orders issued by the Hamilton Fire Department following a fire at his rental property.

The property, originally a two-bedroom house, had been renovated without permits to contain nine bedrooms and two kitchens, occupied by university students.

The appellant argued the building was an individual dwelling unit exempt from certain Fire Code requirements.

The Fire Safety Commission found insufficient evidence of a single tenancy or collective decision-making to classify the property as a single dwelling unit.

The Commission concluded the property operated as a lodging house and that the ordered fire safety measures, including fire separations and a second basement exit, were necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Review Decision was confirmed with amended compliance dates.

Following dismissal of a negligence action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs of the action.

The defendants sought costs, with some requesting substantial indemnity and the municipality requesting partial indemnity.

The court held that substantial indemnity was not justified in the absence of a Rule 49 offer or conduct warranting punitive costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the municipality’s claim due to disproportionate time spent compared with other parties.

Following a successful civil trial, the plaintiffs sought costs after beating their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court considered Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court emphasized that costs awards must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party and are not a precise calculation of actual legal fees.

Costs were fixed globally at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought an action against a municipality for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk.

The court considered whether the sidewalk was in a state of disrepair under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and whether the municipality could rely on statutory defences.

The court found that a significant sidewalk crack and height differential constituted a state of disrepair and that the municipality failed to establish that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent the default.

The plaintiff pedestrian was found contributorily negligent for failing to pay adequate attention despite familiarity with the defect.

Damages were awarded for personal injury, wage loss, and related losses, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory negligence.

The appellant track operator appealed a ruling of the Executive Director imposing a fine, probation, and a requirement to conduct a security audit.

The appellant brought motions for a stay of the ruling pending appeal and for further particulars.

The Commission granted the stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured the appellant and the public interest would be protected by the appellant's continued compliance with existing rules and licence conditions.

The Administration agreed to provide the requested particulars.