Julie Lesage

The applicant, Gaetano Di Blasi, sought a declaration that his property in Aurora, Ontario, was protected as an existing non-conforming use, allowing him to continue using it for outdoor storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, business operations, storage of heavy trucks, and trailers.

The Town of Aurora opposed all uses except residential.

The court reviewed the history of zoning, prior proceedings, and the legal test for non-conforming use, ultimately finding that the relevant date for establishing legal non-conforming use was September 8, 1970, and that the applicant failed to prove the claimed uses were legal and continuous from that date.

The application was dismissed, and costs awarded to the Town.

The plaintiff purchased property from the defendant church to build social housing.

Prior to the sale, the church retained the defendant environmental consultant to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

The consultant's report, which contained a standard disclaimer clause limiting liability to third parties, was provided to the plaintiff by the church without the consultant's knowledge or consent.

After closing, the plaintiff discovered soil contamination and sued the church and the consultant for negligent misrepresentation.

The consultant moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the disclaimer clause effectively excluded any duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and dismissed the action and crossclaims against the consultant.

This decision addresses costs following a successful application by Fela Grunwald and a dismissed application by Edwin Le Marchant and Laura Fiset concerning a right-of-way agreement.

Grunwald sought substantial indemnity costs of $97,459.25 or partial indemnity costs of $80,603.86.

The Le Marchants proposed $43,035.

The court awarded Grunwald $66,000, all inclusive, on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the Le Marchants' arguments were without merit, their conduct did not warrant punitive substantial indemnity costs.

The decision emphasizes that costs generally follow the event on a partial indemnity scale, guided by the principles of indemnification, reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful litigant, and overall reasonableness under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicants sought a declaration that a right-of-way agreement over a mutual driveway was void, while the respondent brought a cross-application seeking rectification of the agreement and an injunction against interference.

The court found that the right-of-way agreement was valid despite lacking a formal enurement clause, as the intention to create an easement running with the land was clear.

The court granted the respondent's application for rectification of the agreement and the parcel registers to correct a drafting error regarding the commencement point of the right-of-way.

The court also declared the respondent's right to vehicular access and ordered the applicants to remove encroachments, including a shed and fence, that substantially interfered with the right-of-way.