Luke Johnston

The appellant developer sued the respondent resident for defamation, economic torts, and trespass after the respondent publicly opposed a mall redevelopment and complained to the city about safety and bylaw issues.

The respondent successfully moved to dismiss the action as a SLAPP under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and was awarded $25,000 in damages and full indemnity costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and damages award, finding the action was inextricably linked to the respondent's public expression and lacked substantial merit.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the motion judge erred by pre-determining the costs scale, and reduced the costs award from $156,394.54 to $75,000.

The plaintiff, 1672736 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Homes), sued the defendants, Ezio Savini (Chief Building Official) and the City of Mississauga, for over $10 million in damages, alleging misfeasance in public office and negligence due to significant delays in building permit applications and unlawful stop work orders for its Streetsville Centre housing project.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently disclosed reasonable causes of action for both misfeasance in public office and negligence.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $15,000 in costs for the motion.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

The applicant builder commenced construction on several blocks of a housing development without building permits.

The City's Chief Building Official issued Orders to Comply and Stop Work Orders.

The applicant appealed the orders under section 25 of the Building Code Act, arguing they were impossible to comply with due to the City's delays in issuing permits.

Although the appeal was moot because the orders had since been cleared, the court exercised its discretion to hear it.

The court affirmed the Orders to Comply, finding they reasonably required the applicant to stop illegal construction immediately.

However, the court rescinded the Stop Work Orders because the Act requires a breach of an Order to Comply before a Stop Work Order can be issued, which had not occurred.