Gabrielle Kramer

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

The appellants and respondent, owners of adjoining properties, disputed the use of a mutual driveway.

The application judge found that a 1975 right-of-way agreement bound successor owners despite lacking a formal enurement clause, as the agreement's wording showed a manifest intention to create an easement running with the land.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings on rectification and factual issues regarding vehicular access and substantial interference.

The defendant builder brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from mould discovered in a home purchased in 1997.

The plaintiff claimed over $6 million for physical, emotional, and financial injuries.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mould caused his physical injuries or financial losses.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff estates brought a motion for a timetable and to extend the time to set the matter down for trial, which the court treated as a status hearing.

The action, a subrogated claim arising from an oil spill, was delayed following the deaths of both original plaintiffs and procedural missteps in obtaining an order to continue.

The court found the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay passable and concluded the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice, as the insurer had promptly investigated the spill.

The action was stayed pending a proper order to continue, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant appealed a judgment determining title to certain former railway lands.

The application judge found the respondent had fee simple title to Part 1 and title to Part 15 subject to the appellant's possessory claim, directing a trial on whether the possessory claim was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's decision to require a trial for the limitation issue due to credibility concerns regarding discoverability, nor in her conclusion that the railway acquired title to Part 1 through legislated powers.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent was successful on an appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,987 plus disbursements and taxes.

The appellants argued the claimed rates and hours were excessive, particularly the attendance of two counsel and the time spent reviewing transcripts.

The court agreed that the hours claimed were excessive, the attendance of two counsel was unnecessary, and certain disbursements were not compensable.

Costs were fixed at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant challenged a municipal licensing bylaw regulating body rub parlours, arguing it had the effect of virtually prohibiting them due to a lack of available commercial space meeting the bylaw's criteria.

The application judge dismissed the challenge, finding the municipality properly assessed relocation opportunities and was not responsible for market conditions or landlords' unwillingness to lease to such businesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the municipality had no legal obligation to ensure favourable market conditions before exercising its statutory authority to regulate.