Liane Langstaff

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 defendants, the City of Hamilton and Craig Saunders, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claim sought $30 million in damages related to alleged illegal dumping of contaminated soil.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1) and that the plaintiffs failed to prove impecuniosity, having structured their financial affairs to shelter assets through third-party litigation funding.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded that an order for security for costs was just and ordered the plaintiffs to pay a total of $376,976 into court.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order requiring it to investigate and clean up street sweepings deposited at various sites.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the City completed sampling and assessment demonstrating the sweepings posed no unacceptable risk, and the site owners consented to leaving the materials in place.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeal, and revoked the Director's Order.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Roberts dated March 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $5,000 to the defendants.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.

The plaintiff appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion under Rule 32.01 for intrusive testing on the defendant's adjacent property to investigate environmental contamination.

The master found that the proposed testing would not be probative because the plaintiff's construction had already altered the soil and groundwater conditions, and that the prejudice to the defendant outweighed any benefit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the master's exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take steps regarding street sweepings delivered to various properties.

The parties reached a proposed settlement agreement with a Terms of Reference for assessing and addressing contaminants, but the appellant would not withdraw its appeal until the measures were completed.

The Tribunal declined to approve the Proposed Minutes of Settlement as a partial settlement is not contemplated by its Rules of Practice, but accepted the process and adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to carry out the work.

The plaintiff, a condominium developer, brought a motion under Rule 32.01 for an order allowing its expert to conduct invasive soil and groundwater testing on the defendants' adjacent property, which operated a dry-cleaning business.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants' property was the source of chlorinated solvent contamination found on its lands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed testing would not be probative because the plaintiff's extensive excavation and construction had irrevocably altered the subsurface conditions.

The court also applied the equitable doctrine of laches, noting the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in seeking the inspection prejudiced the defendants.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.