T. David Marshall

The appellants appealed the application judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over portions of their property in favour of the respondents' neighbouring property.

The appellants argued that the application judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the gravel driveway remained unchanged over the relevant period and reversed the onus of proof.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding that the application judge's reliance on aerial photographs and witness testimony was open to her and that she did not reverse the burden of proof on the prescriptive easement claim.

Appeal dismissed with costs of $10,000 to the respondents.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.

The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.

The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.

This is a costs decision following an application for property rights over portions of the respondents' property.

The applicants sought either ownership by adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a driveway area and a gravel parking and lawn area.

The applicants were substantially successful, obtaining an easement of vehicular ingress and egress over the driveway area and an order requiring the respondents to remove obstructing items.

However, the applicants' claim for adverse possession of the parking and lawn area was dismissed.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants in the amount of $36,000.00, all inclusive, finding that while the respondents' conduct was un-neighbourly and antagonistic, it did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

This property dispute concerned whether the applicants had gained rights over parts of their neighbours’ land used for a shared driveway and a parking and lawn area.

The court rejected the claim for adverse possession of both the driveway strip and the parking and lawn area because the evidence did not show actual possession, an intention to exclude the true owner, or effective exclusion for the required period.

However, the court found that the applicants and their predecessors had openly, continuously, and without permission used the encroaching portion of the driveway since at least 1977, establishing a prescriptive easement for vehicular access.

The court declared the easement, ordered the respondents not to obstruct it, and required removal of items interfering with its use.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal from orders requiring them to post security for costs and pay costs of the motions.

The underlying action involved claims of environmental contamination against the municipality and its employees.

The court applied the Paulsson factors and found that the moving parties' delay was lengthy, their explanations for the delay were not compelling, and the overall justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party, a 50% shareholder in a marijuana retailing business, sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders granting and continuing an injunction against her.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the delay was not adequately justified and that the proposed appeals lacked merit.

The court emphasized the need for the parties to proceed to trial rather than engaging in further interlocutory litigation.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion.

The appellants (defendants in the original action) sought to dismiss Canadian Tire's fraud action, arguing it arose from their expressions related to public interest (complaints about privacy violations and defective products).

The motion judge found the action did not arise from an expression and that the plaintiff's motive was irrelevant at the threshold stage of a SLAPP analysis under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a plaintiff's motive is not a relevant factor at the first stage of the SLAPP analysis, which is restricted to determining if the action arises from an expression related to a matter of public interest.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, as the motion judge properly exercised discretion.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's class action statement of claim, which alleged de facto expropriation by the Crown due to delays at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Crown argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was a nullity due to the plaintiff's failure to provide statutory notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and failed to specify the nature of relief claimed.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claim failed to plead the essential elements of de facto expropriation (no beneficial interest acquired by the Crown and no state action removing all reasonable uses of property).

The court also determined that the Crown could not be vicariously liable for the independent LTB's actions and that the proceeding was a nullity due to the plaintiff's admitted failure to provide the required 60-day notice to the Crown, rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the notice requirement.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was denied as the defects were deemed incurable.

The applicant sought to extend an interlocutory motion and an interim injunction.

The respondent opposed, alleging the applicant failed to disclose material facts on the initial ex parte motion.

The court found the CaseLines file disorganized, with duplicate materials and non-compliant factums from both parties, making it unprepared for a hearing.

The motion was adjourned, and the existing injunctions were extended without prejudice.

The court issued strict directions for both parties to reorganize their filings, including deleting duplicates, filing compliant factums with proper citations and hyperlinks, preparing bookmarked compendiums, and filing a joint motion confirmation form, emphasizing adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure and practice directions regarding hearing preparation and material submission.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to judicially review the decision of an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against several former agents who left to join a competing brokerage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the spatial restrictions in the agreements ambiguous and the temporal limitations unreasonable.

The court also found the plaintiff did not come with clean hands, having previously breached its agreement with the lead defendant by bringing in a competing team without consultation.

The plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim order suspending the applicants' mortgage brokerage and broker licences pending a proposal to revoke them.

The applicants sought to bring a motion to lift or stay the interim order.

The Superintendent raised a jurisdictional objection.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that it lacked the express or implied statutory authority under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 or the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997 to lift or stay an interim suspension order pending a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Compliance Approval issued to the instrument holder for sewage works at a motel.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing the reconsideration of certain variables, the parties agreed to revisions to the approval.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments satisfied its previous order, allowed the appeal in part, and ordered the Director to amend the approval accordingly, lifting the automatic stay.

The appellant appealed the terms and conditions of an Environmental Compliance Approval for sewage works.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the Tribunal issued a procedural order regarding written and oral closing submissions and a site visit.

The Tribunal ordered a perimeter walk of the site without requiring attendees to sign liability waivers or non-disclosure agreements.