Garett Schromm

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Committee of Adjustment granting his neighbour's applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

The applicant, an adjacent property owner, argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing to bring the judicial review, as third parties have no statutory right of appeal under the Planning Act.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant was afforded the requisite low level of procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were adequate.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that upheld an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning approved by the City of Ottawa.

The amendments permitted the development of a warehouse and e-commerce centre on lands adjacent to Highway 416.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no extricable error of law of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The plaintiffs, representing the estate of a deceased real estate developer, brought a motion for further documentary discovery from the defendants, representing the estate of his deceased business partner.

The dispute centered on the calculation of a 'net profit share' under a 2003 agreement.

The plaintiffs sought extensive financial records to challenge the defendants' auditor's valuation, which found a net loss.

Applying the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Master ordered partial production of the requested documents, limiting the scope to the specific project in dispute rather than all related projects.

The defendant vendor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff purchaser's action for the return of a $50,000 deposit.

The plaintiff had failed to close a commercial real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the contract clearly characterized the funds as a deposit, which at common law is forfeited upon the purchaser's breach.

The court also held that the plaintiff could not establish an entitlement to relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was proportional to the expected losses and its retention was not unconscionable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy under s. 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, on the basis that she occupied a superintendent's premises.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by refusing to hear certain evidence, reversing the burden of proof, and finding the informal arrangement justified termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law and noting that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after the employer reorganized its transportation department and reassigned her from an operational engineering role to a largely administrative position while maintaining the same salary and title.

The court applied the constructive dismissal framework from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission and assessed whether a reasonable person would view the changes as substantially altering essential terms of employment.

It found that the reassignment fundamentally changed the nature and quality of the plaintiff’s duties from technical operational work to administrative functions, effectively eliminating the role she had performed for decades.

The court concluded that the employer’s unilateral change amounted to constructive dismissal.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 26 months’ reasonable notice and rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate.

Following settlement of a contempt motion relating to alleged breach of a prior court order governing shared use of a laneway between neighbouring commercial properties, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties argued they were the successful party because the settlement resulted in variations to the earlier order consistent with their requested relief.

The responding parties contended that no contempt finding was made and that costs should either be in the cause or not awarded.

The court held the moving parties were successful because the relief obtained reflected the purpose of the motion and addressed the alleged non‑compliance with the prior order.

However, the court found the bill of costs excessive and fixed costs at $11,000 all‑inclusive, payable forthwith.