Craig Allen

The appellant estate trustee appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision dismissing an application to terminate a tenancy for the purpose of demolishing the rental unit under s. 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The LTB found the landlord lacked a genuine, crystallized intention to demolish the unit, as the landlord remained willing to sell the property with the house intact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB reasonably interpreted s. 50(1)(a) as containing an implied good faith requirement for a genuine intention to demolish, and that the LTB's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit filed in support of an upcoming summary judgment motion, arguing the statements were hearsay and failed to state the source of information and belief as required by Rule 39.01(4).

The plaintiff argued the sources were discernible from the exhibits attached to the affidavit.

The court declined to strike the statements, provided the plaintiff files a supplementary affidavit within 10 days explicitly stating the sources.

The defendants were awarded costs of $3,600 as the motion could have been avoided had the plaintiff provided the sources when requested.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance to purchase a property based on a right of first refusal agreement signed by her late husband and his brothers.

The defendant purchaser brought a cross-motion to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the agreement unambiguously granted the right of first refusal only to the 'parties' (the brothers), not to 'family members' like the plaintiff.

The court declined to admit parol evidence of intention and held that the doctrine of privity of contract precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the agreement.

The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from the defendant after he had unprotected sex with them without disclosing his status.

The plaintiffs sued the Windsor Health Unit and the Windsor Police for negligence, alleging they knew of the risk the defendant posed but failed to take steps to prevent it.

The health unit and police moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing they owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the issue of whether a duty of care existed was complex and required a full trial to determine proximity and policy considerations.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred driver, was fined and suspended by the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) for refusing to provide a urine sample and using abusive language.

After his appeals to the ORC and Divisional Court were dismissed, he sued the ORC and its investigator for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action based on issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised in the civil action were the same as those already decided by the ORC, and permitting the action to proceed would be an abuse of process.