Mark A. Wiffen

The appellant appealed his provincial offences convictions, including operating a motor vehicle without insurance, failing to wear a seatbelt, and operating without a validated permit.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence establishing that the appellant had automobile insurance at the time of the offence.

The conviction for operating without insurance was set aside and an acquittal substituted.

The appeal regarding the remaining charges was dismissed as the appellant provided no substantive defence or explanation for missing his first court appearance.

The appellant appealed a Master's procedural order concerning late delivery of an affidavit of documents and related case management directions, including a substantial indemnity costs award and dispensing with approval of the draft order.

The court emphasized the high level of appellate deference owed to discretionary procedural decisions made by Masters.

It held that brief endorsements can suffice as reasons in procedural case management contexts and that no palpable and overriding error had been demonstrated.

The appellant had not sought leave to appeal the level of costs under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was cancelled in 1997 following a criminal conviction, applied for a new Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Registrar referred the application to the Discipline Committee pursuant to s. 33(15) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing he should be treated as a new applicant under s. 18 and that s. 33(15) could not apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the legislative amendment applied retrospectively as its purpose was to protect the public, not to punish, and the Registrar did not breach any duty of fairness.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying portions of their first and second-year statutory warranty claims regarding their new home built by Tanis Woods Development Inc. The Tribunal reviewed several outstanding items, including the front doors, kitchen cabinets, garage man door, exterior bricks, eaves troughs, bathroom vents, and a wheelchair accessible toilet.

The Tribunal found that the garage man door closure mechanism was defective and upheld that claim.

For the front doors, the Tribunal awarded $985 as previously offered by Tarion for repairs, rejecting the claim for full replacement costs.

All other claims were dismissed as they either fell within acceptable construction guidelines, constituted normal wear and tear, or did not breach the building contract or Ontario Building Code.

The appellants (majority directors) appealed a costs order of $213,380.64 made against them personally following an application by the respondents (minority directors).

The Court of Appeal upheld the quantum of costs but found the application judge erred in ordering costs against the directors personally without a finding of mala fides.

The court noted the corporation's constitution provided for indemnification of directors acting in the execution of their duties.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to make the corporation responsible for the costs.

The plaintiff brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders that dismissed a motion to continue an ex parte Anton Piller order and dismissed subsequent motions for relief under Rules 30 and 45.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge properly considered the matter de novo and correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to justify continuing the intrusive order.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the orders and no denial of natural justice.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that found no wrongdoing or improper conduct by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the relevant legal test and that the factual findings did not support the application of s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that a lease agreement for a municipal solid waste demonstration plant expired on January 28, 2003, and ordering the third party to indemnify the respondent municipality.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the automatic three-year extension was triggered when the facility first accepted waste, not when it was fully completed.

The Court also upheld the finding that the third party was bound by an indemnity undertaking contained in its proposal, which was incorporated into the agreement between its wholly-owned subsidiary and the municipality.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to stay an Ontario action in favour of arbitration and forum selection clauses contained in an Additional Rights Agreement.

The dispute arose over the termination of the respondents' management rights following the sale of certain theatre assets.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the competence-competence principle.

The Court held that where it is arguable that a dispute falls within the terms of an arbitration agreement, the court should grant a stay and leave the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction to the arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings in California.

The appellant moved to extend the time to perfect its appeal.

The court found that while there was substantial delay, it was attributable to the appellant's previous solicitor and not the appellant itself, who maintained a bona fide intention to proceed.

The respondent did not allege specific prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the time to perfect the appeal, with costs of the motion awarded to the respondent.

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.