Ondrej Sabo

The appellant appealed an order finding that the civil courts had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims of sexual assault by a priest and negligence by the appellant.

The appellant argued the motion judge breached natural justice by relying on an academic article and case law not raised by the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's reference to an academic article criticizing prior case law did not breach natural justice, as it did not involve relying on facts outside the record.

The Court upheld the finding that the dispute was not purely ecclesiastical in nature and subject to canon law.

Furthermore, the Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion under the Van Breda framework.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the conduct of the upcoming hearing regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing November 9, 2026.

The issues to be determined at the hearing include the market value of the expropriated lands and compensation for the removal of lawn, shrubs, and trees.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to a 15-day hearing commencing in January 2027 and submitted a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the responding parties' appeal of a Superior Court order confirming an assessment officer's certificate.

The assessment officer had reduced the responding parties' legal accounts, resulting in a further payment of $25,546.14 required from the moving parties.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal route for a solicitor and client costs assessment is determined by the amount of the single payment ordered by the Superior Court judge.

Because the single payment ordered was less than $50,000, the appeal lay to the Divisional Court.

The motion to quash was allowed and the appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The claimant sought compensation for the partial expropriation of its property by the Town of Tecumseh for road and service upgrades.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property, both before and after expropriation, was the continuation of its existing commercial use, rejecting the claimant's proposed mixed-use redevelopment scenario due to a lack of evidence on financial feasibility.

The Tribunal awarded $332,515 for the fee simple taking based on a value of $73 per square foot, $44,435 for the expropriated easement, and $15,000 for injurious affection related to snow removal costs on the remaining lands.

Claims for disturbance damages were dismissed as premature.

The parties attended a Telephone Conference Call regarding five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation in London.

The parties requested an update on proposed mediation dates and sought minor amendments to the Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal ordered the revised Procedural Order to be in full force and effect and confirmed that the Case Coordinator would communicate with the Mediation Team regarding the February mediation dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation following the expropriation of portions of a property by the City of Windsor.

The Tribunal scheduled a Tribunal-facilitated mediation session and a three-day video hearing.

A Procedural Order was approved, setting out the issues list and deadlines for the exchange of evidence and expert reports.

The sole beneficiary of an estate sought a motion for partial distribution of trust funds held by the estate trustee prior to reaching the age of 25 specified in the will.

The beneficiary invoked the rule in Saunders v. Vautier to argue entitlement to funds.

The estate trustee resisted distribution, citing pending litigation regarding the improper sale of estate property and the need to hold funds for potential legal costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the beneficiary could invoke Saunders v. Vautier, the estate trustee's discretion to withhold funds pending resolution of the litigation and for a reasonable holdback for legal costs was not unreasonably exercised.

The Claimant sought leave to amend its Notice of Arbitration to add claims for injurious affection and disturbance damages arising from the partial expropriation of its lands by the Respondent school board.

The Respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the injurious affection claim was statute-barred and lacked sufficient particulars.

The Tribunal found the claim was not statute-barred, as the Claimant sought the amendment within one month of discovering the alleged damage via an expert appraisal report.

However, the Tribunal agreed that the proposed amendments lacked sufficient particulars regarding quantum and factual basis.

The Tribunal directed the Claimant to provide further amendments detailing the particulars before leave would be granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of a proceeding regarding the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on January 19, 2026, for a period of five days.

The order sets out the timetable for the exchange of documents, discoveries, expert reports, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The claimant brought a proceeding under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation regarding a property in Puslinch.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of the proceeding leading up to a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 3, 2025.

The order established a timetable for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements.

The applicants sought an order appointing section 3 counsel for the respondent, Joan Horneman, under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, due to her alleged incapacity to instruct counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Horneman already had legal representation.

The court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, appointing section 3 counsel would be inappropriate given Ms. Horneman's undisputed incapacity to instruct counsel, as section 3 counsel cannot act without instructions and their communications are privileged, making it difficult to assess the reliability of any information about the person's wishes.

The decision emphasized the distinction between the role of section 3 counsel and a litigation guardian.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following the partial expropriation of the claimants' property by the City of Windsor.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a Procedural Order, directed the parties on mediation, and scheduled a three-day video hearing for November 2024.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to schedule a new hearing date for a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act, following an adjournment.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for December 13-15, 2023, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing requirements and the conduct of the arbitration.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend his registration as a real estate broker for making false statements and having administrative staff complete his continuing education courses.

Shortly after the hearing commenced, the parties reached a resolution and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order suspending the appellant's registration for 60 days and requiring him to complete an ethics course.

The appellant, a real estate broker, brought a motion to strike the Registrar's Further Particulars in support of a proposal to suspend his registration.

The appellant argued the particulars contained irrelevant allegations of workplace harassment and duplicated other proceedings, constituting an abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it had the authority to strike documents to prevent an abuse of process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the allegations were potentially relevant to whether the appellant would carry on business with integrity and honesty, and their inclusion did not amount to an abuse of process or procedural unfairness.

The appellant real estate broker appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision suspending his registration for three months.

The suspension was based on false statements in registration applications and workplace misconduct.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the notice of proposal did not include the workplace misconduct allegations.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the LAT improperly relied on unparticularized evidence of workplace misconduct to support its finding that the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs submissions, no costs were awarded.

The defendant Estate Trustee brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action against the Estate, arguing it was an abuse of process because it duplicated claims already raised in an ongoing application challenging the validity of the deceased's will.

The plaintiff had commenced the separate action to include claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the solicitor who drafted the will.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the claims against the Estate were duplicative, the plaintiff was not a vexatious litigant and the multiplicity of proceedings could be remedied by an order to try the action together with the trial of issues in the application.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) in an action brought by the plaintiff alleging an improvident sale of a commercial property under power of sale.

The plaintiff corporation had no assets in Ontario, but its sole shareholder was not impecunious.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a 'good chance of success' on the merits to avoid posting security.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $60,000 in security for costs in installments.