4 total
Motion to intervene in expropriation appeal dismissed as proposed intervenors offered no distinct legal contribution.
The proposed intervenors, three regional municipalities, brought a motion for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.
The underlying appeal involved a private dispute between an expropriating authority and a landowner over the market value of expropriated land.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate they would make a useful and distinct contribution not already offered by the appellant.
The court noted that the intervention would unnecessarily broaden and complicate the private dispute by introducing issues related to the capital planning of other municipalities.
Action dismissed against hydro company after falling bird struck plaintiff; no reckless disregard found.
The plaintiff was injured at a park when a cormorant struck overhead hydro wires and fell on her head.
She sued the city and the hydro company for negligence.
The court ruled the plaintiff's expert evidence inadmissible as it failed the Mohan criteria.
The court held that under the Occupiers' Liability Act, the plaintiff was deemed to have willingly assumed the risks of entering the utility corridor for recreational purposes.
The court found that the hydro company did not act with reckless disregard and dismissed the action against it.
Appeal allowed; trial judge erred in finding vehicle owner liable for damages caused by unknown driver.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to the respondent for a hydro pole destroyed by the appellant's pickup truck.
The trial judge found the appellant liable under s 193 of the Highway Traffic Act because she failed to meet the onus of proving the damage was not caused by her negligence or improper conduct, despite finding she was not driving.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by rejecting the appellant's evidence that she did not consent to anyone driving her truck without giving good reasons.
Appeal dismissed; final payment owed as building was complete and ready for occupancy without requiring an occupancy permit.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding the respondents were entitled to a final payment under a Customer Agreement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the building was 'complete and ready for occupancy' within the required 24-month period.
The Court rejected the appellant's argument that an occupancy permit was required, noting the Building Code Act does not mandate one as a condition of occupancy and the unilaterally imposed agreement terms did not explicitly require it.
The appeal regarding prejudgment interest and costs was also dismissed.
