J.P. Maloney

The applicant sought declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against a neighbouring winery and the Town, alleging the winery hosted outdoor events in violation of the agricultural zoning by-law and its site-specific plan.

The winery consented to the declarations and injunctions.

The applicant proceeded against the Town, seeking mandamus to compel by-law enforcement and a statutory injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the Town from facilitating the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application against the Town, finding that the by-law did not impose a duty of enforcement necessary for mandamus, and there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness by the Town to warrant an injunction against it.

The defendant was charged with two counts under the Building Code Act: failing to comply with an order to comply (count 1) and causing construction of a building without a permit (count 2).

The prosecution proved the actus reus of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that the defendant established a valid defence of legal non-conforming use on a balance of probabilities.

The defendant, as the current owner of property that had been in her family since the 1940s, demonstrated the requisite intent and commitment to rebuild structures destroyed in 1985 storms.

The court rejected alternative defences regarding direct evidence requirements, the existence of three independent structures, and due diligence.

Both counts were dismissed based on the legal non-conforming use defence.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered three pre-trial motions in a Provincial Offences Act prosecution involving alleged violations of the Building Code Act.

The court granted the prosecution's request to amend the offence dates on the information to a date within the statutory limitation period, rejecting a broader date range that was statute barred.

The court refused to quash the information despite technical irregularities in the jurat signature, holding that substance prevails over form and that the information was properly laid under s.23(1.2) POA.

The court also ruled that the doctrine of discoverability applies to the limitation period under s.36(8) BCA, making the continuing offence argument irrelevant for limitation purposes.

The court granted leave to reapply on amendment and limitation issues based on trial evidence and remains seized of the matter.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion in which Sullivan Mahoney LLP, a law firm, successfully opposed Grace McDonald's attempt to set aside a Report and Certificate of Assessment regarding legal fees.

The court considered the appropriate amount of costs to award, particularly in the context of a law firm representing itself.

The court ultimately awarded $2,500 in costs to Sullivan Mahoney LLP, finding that while the firm was entitled to costs, there was insufficient evidence to support a higher award based on lost opportunity costs.

The decision concerns an appeal by Grace McDonald, a former client, seeking to set aside a Report and Certificate of Assessment made by an assessment officer regarding legal fees charged by Sullivan Mahoney LLP.

The court reviews issues of procedural fairness, the assessment of paid and unpaid accounts, the enforcement of filing deadlines, and the process for objecting to an assessment officer’s decision.

The court finds no error in the assessment officer’s conduct or application of the law and dismisses the appeal.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a municipal election compliance audit, the added parties (the candidates) sought costs against the appellant.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that she was a public interest litigant immune from costs, finding she continued to pursue abandoned and technical allegations on appeal.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $12,600 for the three represented candidates and $1,000 for the self-represented candidate.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision.

The appellant sought a compliance audit of campaign finances for four municipal candidates under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Committee dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added parties (the four candidates) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the usual practice of awarding costs to successful parties should apply.

The court rejected arguments that the appellant was a public interest litigant and found the added parties' participation in the appeal was necessary to defend their reputations against public allegations.