Robert B. Lawson

The applicant retirement home sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Sheriff to enforce a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order against a resident with severe physical disabilities.

The Sheriff had refused to enforce the order due to health and safety concerns and the lack of a safe alternative location for the resident.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Sheriff has a mandatory statutory duty to enforce eviction orders and that the balance of convenience favoured enforcement, given the resident's failure to cooperate in finding alternative accommodations.

The Sheriff was given a delayed deadline to carry out the eviction.

The husband appealed an equalization payment order, challenging the trial judge's findings on several disputed items in the net family property calculations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by denying the husband a deduction for property owned on the date of marriage, denying an exclusion for an inter vivos gift deposited into a joint bank account, and improperly valuing a vehicle acquired by gift.

The Court held that excluded property deposited into a joint account loses its exclusionary character only to the extent of the one-half interest presumed gifted to the spouse.

The equalization payment and costs awards were adjusted accordingly.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

She had quit her retail management job due to stress and anxiety, and sought support while upgrading her education to pursue a new career.

The court found her career plan lacked concrete details and noted she was capable of working in a non-managerial role.

The court imputed income to the mother based on her work history and dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding her financial need was largely self-created.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents $1,859,999 for injurious affection to their remaining lands following an expropriation.

The appellants argued that a previously granted parkland dedication credit settled the claim, should be set off against the damages, or that the Board erred in calculating the lost development units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court held that the parkland credit related to the expropriated land, while the injurious affection claim related to the loss of opportunity to build townhouses on the remaining land, meaning there was no double recovery.

Following an appeal regarding compensation for expropriated properties, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that success was equally divided between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the claimants, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion of the appeal.

However, the City of Toronto was substantially successful on the most time-consuming and financially significant issues against the claimants.

The court awarded the City costs fixed at $120,000.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to the respondents for the expropriation of their waterfront properties.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's assessment of market value, injurious affection, and loss of riparian rights, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding disturbance damages, setting aside a $4,000,000 award for delay and a $1,850,000 award for loss of a parkland dedication credit.

The Court found that the respondents, who were not active developers, did not suffer a compensable business disturbance from the delay, and that the parkland credit award constituted double recovery and was speculative.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding a doctor $81,850 for injurious affection caused by subway construction near his leased offices.

The doctor cross-appealed the quantum of damages, arguing the Board erred in reducing damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle in the Board's assessment of reasonableness or damages.

The appellant doctor performed cosmetic surgery on the respondent's eyelid.

The respondent suffered complications and required revisionary surgeries.

She sued for negligence based on a lack of informed consent.

The trial judge found that a reasonable person in the respondent's position, if informed of the material risks, would not have proceeded with the surgery at that time due to her financial situation and career plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test for causation from Reibl v. Hughes, properly considering the respondent's special circumstances.

The appellant solicitor was called to a hospital to prepare a deathbed will for a terminally ill patient.

After interviewing the patient, who drifted in and out of consciousness, the solicitor concluded the patient lacked testamentary capacity and declined to prepare the will.

The patient died intestate.

A prospective beneficiary sued the solicitor for negligence and succeeded at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the solicitor's duty was to ascertain testamentary capacity.

Finding the patient lacked capacity, the solicitor properly declined the retainer.

In the absence of a retainer, the solicitor owed no duty of care to the prospective beneficiary.