Michael Lerner

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to continue a joint retainer with an accountant and to produce documents to assist the accountant.

The appellants had lost confidence in the accountant and purported to terminate the relationship.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by effectively ordering specific performance of a professional relationship where the client had lost confidence.

As the order for the continued retainer was quashed, the order for document production was also set aside.

This property boundary dispute concerned competing applications over a triangular strip and adjoining open lawn between neighbouring Port Stanley properties.

The court held that adverse possession was established only for the enclosed triangular area within the existing picket fence, based on long-standing actual possession, inferred intention to exclude, and effective exclusion.

The broader claim to the open lawn extending by a projected fence line failed because the evidence did not establish actual possession, intention to exclude, mutual mistake, demarcation, or effective exclusion during the relevant pre-conversion period under the Land Titles Act.

The alternative claim in proprietary estoppel also failed for want of encouragement, detrimental reliance, and unconscionable advantage.

The appellant tenant and respondent landlord disagreed over the interpretation of their commercial lease on two points: whether the leased premises included a parking area owned by the City of London and licensed to the landlord, and whether the landlord's right to exclusive use of office space permitted the landlord to lease that space to a third party.

The application judge found against the tenant on both points.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision regarding the parking area but reversed on the office space issue, finding that the lease language clearly distinguished between "use" (reserved exclusively to the landlord) and "access or entry" (afforded to the landlord and invitees), and therefore the landlord could not lease the office to a third party.

The appellant, a restaurant operator, applied to change conditions on its liquor licence to permit amplified music on its outdoor patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the changes, which the appellant appealed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove a change in circumstances that would justify altering the conditions, which had been voluntarily accepted upon transfer of the licence.

Furthermore, based on extensive testimony from local residents and a municipal council resolution opposing the application, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the changes would not be in the public interest, as the existing conditions were necessary to maintain a peaceful balance between the commercial establishments and the community.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Joe Kool's Restaurant.

At a pre-hearing, the parties jointly requested an adjournment pending the outcome of a motion for a stay of proceedings in a related matter before the Divisional Court, which raised the same legal issue.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die and scheduled a further pre-hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, one of the personal respondents, having recently retained separate counsel, requested an adjournment to prepare a defence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period following the notice of hearing and that late retention of counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to immediately comply with their document disclosure obligations.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued an order scheduling a motion on jurisdiction raised by the Licensee during a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.

The hearing had been adjourned sine die, and the Board ordered the motion to proceed on May 11-13, 2010, or alternatively, for the hearing to resume on those dates if the Licensee elected not to proceed with the motion.

The Licensee requested an adjournment of a liquor licence suspension hearing to await the outcome of freedom of information requests, including a request for a report on the AGCO's conduct, which the Licensee argued was necessary for a jurisdictional motion.

The Registrar consented to the adjournment.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die, imposing conditions on the Licensee to provide weekly status updates on the information requests and setting a deadline for the submission of the jurisdictional motion.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, challenging the trial judge's exemption of the respondent from provincial sex offender registry requirements, the refusal to order forfeiture of a computer, and the failure to make mandatory DNA and SOIRA orders.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to exempt the respondent from the provincial legislation and erred in failing to make the requested DNA and SOIRA orders, as the respondent did not establish that the impact would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision not to order forfeiture of the computer.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent establishment, alleging violations of the Liquor Licence Act regulations and breaches of specific licence conditions.

The allegations included permitting drunkenness on the premises and failing to adhere to conditions restricting patron ingress/egress to the front doors and prohibiting line-ups in the adjacent alleyway.

The Board found that the evidence established breaches of the regulation regarding intoxicated patrons and clear violations of the licence conditions regarding door usage and line-ups.

The Board invited written submissions on penalty.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Cowboys Ranch for serving intoxicated patrons.

At the hearing, the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The tribunal found that the licensee breached section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act and subsection 45(1) of Regulation 719/90.

The tribunal accepted the joint submission and ordered a 10-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the licensee operating as 'The Still' due to an incident involving drunken and disorderly patrons and a fight.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding a breach of subsection 45(1) of O.Reg 719/90.

The Board ordered a seven-day suspension of the liquor licence and added a condition requiring a minimum of four visibly identifiable trained security personnel on duty during specified hours on Friday and Saturday nights from May to October.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that drunken patrons were permitted on the premises, a fight broke out, and drinks were sold at a discounted price of $1.75.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 13-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the corporate licensee.

The Board ordered that both the corporate licensee and the Registrar complete mutual disclosure, including witness lists and evidence summaries, ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of 1325790 Ontario Ltd. operating as Capitol Concert Theatre.

The Board ordered both the corporate licensee and the Registrar to complete their disclosure, including witness lists and evidence summaries, ten days before the scheduled hearing date.