QC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's trial record and dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff failed to comply with a pre-pandemic court order requiring the action to be set down for trial by June 30, 2020.

The plaintiff argued that the deadline was suspended by the provincial emergency regulation suspending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the regulation suspended the filing time and that the plaintiff had filed the trial record within the appropriately calculated extended deadline.

The defendants' motion was dismissed with costs.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought an application for a permanent injunction, a closure order, and a mandatory remediation order against the respondents for operating an illegal commercial fill site on environmentally sensitive land.

The City also brought a motion for contempt against one respondent for continuing the fill operation in breach of a prior interim injunction.

The court granted the permanent injunction, closure order, and mandatory order, finding the respondents had blatantly violated municipal by-laws and imported massive amounts of contaminated fill.

The court also found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered him to purge his contempt by remediating the property at his own expense.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $42,000 following her successful application to recognize an easement and defence of a counterapplication.

The respondents argued for a costs award of $10,000, relying on a prior settlement offer.

The court rejected the respondents' reliance on the settlement offer, noting it would have left the applicant responsible for her own costs and restricted in her use of the right of way.

The court awarded the applicant $31,500 in all-inclusive costs.

The applicant and respondents are neighbours with adjoining properties on Lake Erie.

The applicant sought a declaration that she had an implied or prescriptive appurtenant easement over a portion of the respondents' property to access the beach, after the respondents built fences blocking her path.

The court found that the applicant had established an easement by prescription through continuous, open, and peaceful use for over 20 years.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments that the easement had been extinguished by operation of law due to a change in purpose or abuse by the applicant.

The respondents were ordered to remove the obstructing fences.

The applicant First Nation sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Exploration granting a mining exploration permit to a corporate respondent on lands within the applicant's traditional territory.

The applicant argued the Crown failed to properly discharge its duty to consult.

The Divisional Court found that the Crown and its delegate had created clear expectations for a community meeting and a Memorandum of Understanding, but abruptly changed course without explanation to expedite the permit for commercial reasons.

The court held that the consultation process lacked genuine engagement and failed to maintain the honour of the Crown.

The application was granted, the permit was set aside, and the matter was remitted for adequate consultation.

The parties are neighbours involved in a dispute over rights of way.

The respondents brought a motion under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the applications pending arbitration, relying on an agreement that disputes over maintenance expenses or the nature of use of the rights of way shall be arbitrated.

The court found that the core dispute was about the existence of the rights of way, not their maintenance or nature of use.

The motion to stay was dismissed, except for one alternative claim regarding minimum use guidelines.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought an action regarding the proceeds from the sale of a property jointly developed by the deceased and the defendant, her former common-law partner.

The defendant relied on a cohabitation agreement that provided property division would be determined solely by legal ownership.

The plaintiff relied on a subsequent oral property development agreement, confirmed in writing by the defendant, that provided for the return of investments and equal sharing of profits.

The court found that neither party understood the cohabitation agreement to apply to their property development activities and set it aside in part under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3,145,682.88 based on the property development agreement.

The defendant regulator moved to strike a self-represented claim alleging reprisal, privacy violations, and accessibility-related breaches arising from an investigation into unlicensed legal services.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, including because the governing statute did not create a private law duty of care and conferred good-faith immunity on the regulator and its officers.

The court further held that the accessibility provisions relied on did not prohibit the investigation or create a civil cause of action on the pleaded facts.

The action was also found frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it attempted to re-litigate an earlier dismissed proceeding.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a defamation action against a newspaper and others, appealed an order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in law by not applying section 12 of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Court held that section 12 provides a specific, more onerous procedure for security for costs in libel actions involving newspapers, which takes precedence over the general provisions of Rule 56 pursuant to Rule 1.02(1)3.