Linden Glenn Frelick

Two groups of landowners appealed the Surveyor General's confirmation of a survey that extended road allowances to the water's edge of Georgian Bay, separating their properties from the beach.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by ignoring a previous Divisional Court decision, misapplying common law principles of accretion, and rejecting estoppel arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding the Surveyor General made reasonable findings of fact supported by evidence, including that no accretion had occurred and that the original 1820s survey intended the road allowances to reach the water.

The court held the standard of review was correctness for law and palpable and overriding error for fact, and found no such errors.

This endorsement concerns the award of costs following the dismissal of a proceeding against all defendants under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' claims were found to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, including serious allegations of fraud, theft, and professional misconduct.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that such an elevated award was justified to discourage fruitless litigation and inappropriate conduct, particularly in cases involving Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) concepts.

The court agreed, finding that substantial indemnity costs were warranted given the nature of the dismissed claims and the plaintiffs' conduct, and awarded specific amounts to the defendants.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The Crown appealed a motion judge's decision that a single notice letter satisfied the 60-day notice requirement under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act for 15 separate class actions.

The actions alleged the Crown failed to enforce HST guidelines against automobile insurers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice letter communicated a broad complaint on behalf of a defined class and fulfilled the legislative purpose of allowing the Crown to investigate and prepare for litigation, even though 15 separate actions with different representative plaintiffs were ultimately commenced.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interim procedural ruling that issued a summons compelling the production of a Wagg brief in a grievance arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that it is premature to judicially review interlocutory decisions of administrative decision-makers.

The court found that the arbitrator has the authority to rule on her own jurisdiction and procedural matters, and that fragmenting the arbitration process would frustrate legislative goals.

The Applicant, Toronto School of Technology Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Registrar's investigation revealed that the Applicant had engaged in egregious conduct, including providing unauthorized refunds to students funded by the Second Career program, delivering vocational programs remotely without approval, failing to maintain proper student records, and scheduling instructors to teach multiple classes simultaneously.

The Tribunal found the evidence against the Applicant compelling and rejected the Applicant's defense of an "honest but mistaken belief." The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to operate the college in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Superintendent to refuse to renew the registration.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the lower court judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,000.

Following the Superintendent's proposal to partially wind up a pension plan, the employer requested a hearing but withdrew the request shortly before the scheduled dates.

The represented employees applied for $3,500 in costs against the employer.

The Tribunal denied the costs application, finding that the employer provided a reasonable explanation for the withdrawal, raised substantial issues, and did not cause unreasonable delay that prejudiced the employees.