Derek Collins

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to decommission an unapproved septic tank at their restaurant and route sewage to holding tanks in compliance with their Environmental Compliance Approval.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellants agreed to install an external gravity connection to route wastewater to the holding tanks and disconnect the septic system, subject to monthly engineering reports.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the withdrawal of the appeal, and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellants brought a motion for an order requiring the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to disclose all records relating to an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing the documents were irrelevant and the request was a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the documents were likely relevant to the appellants' grounds for appeal regarding whether pre-existing septic systems were properly decommissioned.

The motion for disclosure was granted.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached an oral contract to pay a 5% commission on balloon sales to a retail chain.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and improperly relied on discovery evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the record and the improper admission of discovery evidence caused no substantial wrong.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding a pre-trial costs order was allowed, as the trial judge lacked authority to alter the motion judge's order.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an injunction to shut down a police firing range.

The respondent had offered to cease activity without costs, which the applicants rejected due to wanting costs and environmental clean-up.

The court dismissed the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the respondent.

However, the court found the applicants' partial indemnity claim of $60,237.93 to be reasonable given the complexity and importance of the case, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount.

Following previously released reasons for judgment, the court considered written submissions from counsel regarding damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The court determined that the parties had not been ad idem regarding the originally referenced damage amount and corrected the damages to a lower amount consistent with the evidence and an exhibit accepted as accurate.

The court also fixed pre-judgment interest from the fall of 2006 and reassessed the plaintiff’s costs in light of a prior offer to settle and the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The earlier judgment was amended to reflect the corrected damages, interest, and a consolidated costs award.

The plaintiff corporation claimed a 5% commission on sales made by the defendant balloon wholesaler to a major retail chain, alleging an oral agreement was reached after the plaintiff introduced the parties and helped strategize the sales program.

The defendant denied the agreement, arguing the plaintiff had minimal involvement and offering a nominal fee.

The court found that an oral agreement for a 5% commission on gross sales did exist, based on the parties' correspondence, past relationship, and the plaintiff's significant role in securing the account.

The court awarded the plaintiff $350,000 in damages, representing commissions for a reasonable five-year period.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a proceeding under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that while there was some overlap regarding events from January to February 2014, the WSIA proceeding did not address allegations from February to May 2014, including the applicant's removal from the work schedule.

Due to insufficient overlap, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to defer the application and directed the respondents to file a response.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensive discovery relief in a contractual dispute, including permission to create a mirror copy of the defendant’s computer hard drive, disclosure of detailed information regarding the defendant’s electronic document searches, enforcement of alleged undertakings, and permission to contact the defendant’s IT manager.

The court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure require production of relevant documents but do not require a party to disclose the methodology used to search for those documents.

The plaintiff’s request for a mirror copy of the defendant’s hard drive was rejected as speculative and invasive, absent evidence that relevant undisclosed documents existed.

The court also found that the undertakings relied upon by the plaintiff had either been fulfilled or had not been given as alleged, and that contacting the defendant’s IT manager directly would breach the Rules of Professional Conduct because he was involved in the conduct of the litigation.

A mortgagee sought costs following motions in a mortgage enforcement action where it obtained summary judgment against the mortgagors.

The mortgagors had unsuccessfully alleged that the property was sold for less than fair market value and were only notionally successful on a venue motion with no practical effect after summary judgment was granted.

The mortgage required the mortgagors to indemnify the mortgagee for enforcement costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the mortgagee’s costs outline reasonable and awarded fees and disbursements on a full indemnity scale.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision not to process an application for the renewal of a body rub parlour licence.

The licence had automatically terminated under the municipal by-law when the controlling interest in the applicant corporation was transferred following the death of its principal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the automatic termination constituted a lawful revocation under the by-law, which permanently reduced the number of available licences and left the City with no authority to issue a new one.

The defendants, who were successful at trial, brought a motion for security for costs of the plaintiff's appeal under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and that there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the trial judge had made strong adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and rejected his expert evidence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 into court as security for the defendants' costs of the appeal.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed human rights complaints against the university and two student unions, alleging discrimination because her disability prevented her from taking enough credits for full-time status, thereby denying her certain benefits.

The university and one student union requested dismissal of the applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and as an abuse of process, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by the university's internal Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the internal tribunal hearing constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against the university.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the student union as an abuse of process, noting the internal tribunal had recorded that complaint as resolved.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision, which was based on the credibility of witnesses, surveillance video, and the appellant's failure to disclose relevant information to his doctors and on his CPP application.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $4,500.

The respondent applied for an official plan amendment, zoning change, and subdivision approval, providing the prescribed information but refusing to provide additional information requested by the appellant municipality.

The municipality refused to forward the appeal record to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing the 90-day period for a decision had not commenced.

The Court of Appeal held that under the Planning Act, the 90-day period begins once the prescribed information and fees are provided, regardless of whether additional requested information is supplied.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the respondent to proceed directly to the OMB.