Harry Poch

The applicant sought judicial review of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions dismissing her application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval granted to an adjacent asphalt plant, and refusing to reconsider that dismissal.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the applicant's submissions regarding zoning, noise, and past environmental breaches.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The defendants, Toromont Industries Ltd. (and Toromont Cat) and Caterpillar Inc., brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Haliburton Forest & Wildlife Reserve Ltd.'s claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation related to the purchase of forestry equipment.

Toromont relied on entire agreement (EA) and limitation of liability (LL) clauses in the sales contracts.

Caterpillar argued it was not a party to the sales contracts and that its limited warranty excluded liability.

The court granted partial summary judgment to Toromont, dismissing most of Haliburton's claims but allowing a claim under the Sale of Goods Act for the purchase price of the equipment to proceed.

The court granted full summary judgment to Caterpillar, dismissing all claims against it, finding no privity of contract for SGA claims, no reasonable reliance on representations, and no duty of care for pure economic loss.

Following the discontinuance of an environmental contamination action seeking $20 million in damages, the defendant successfully obtained costs of the action.

The present endorsement addressed the costs of the defendant’s motion for those costs.

The court found the defendant reasonably brought the motion because the plaintiffs did not admit entitlement to costs until late in the proceedings, though most of the motion work related to the disputed quantum rather than entitlement.

As neither party achieved success on the principal issue of quantum, the court declined to award costs for that portion of the motion.

Limited costs were awarded for the entitlement issue caused by the plaintiffs’ delayed admission.

The City of Kingston operated a municipal dump site from which toxic leachate migrated into the Cataraqui River.

The Crown and a private citizen laid charges under s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

The trial judge convicted the City and its Director of Environmental Services, but the summary conviction appeal judge ordered a new trial, applying the test from R. v. Inco Ltd. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the Inco test applies to the Ontario Water Resources Act, not the Fisheries Act.

Under the Fisheries Act, the Crown need only prove that the substance added to the water is deleterious, not that the receiving water itself was rendered deleterious.