Mark Munro

The plaintiff sought repayment of approximately $300,000 in alleged loans from the defendant.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and alternatively sought leave to amend his statement of defence to withdraw certain admissions.

The court found that significant factual disputes, including the nature of communications between the parties (complicated by the plaintiff's deafness and English comprehension), created a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the claim was discovered and if a clear and unequivocal demand for repayment was made.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The motion for leave to amend the statement of defence was granted, as no non-compensable prejudice would result.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of charges against the respondents for unlawfully operating a public storage facility on four properties zoned Highway Commercial C3.

The trial justice found the by-law unclear regarding public storage and dismissed the charges.

On appeal, the court held that the by-law contained an overall prohibition on land uses not specifically permitted, and public storage was not enumerated as a permitted use in the C3 zone.

The court found the use was unlawful both at the time of purchase in 1988 and at present, therefore the defence of legal non-conforming use failed.

The appeal was allowed and convictions were registered.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action after an eight-day trial, the court considered written costs submissions.

The defendant sought enhanced costs due to the plaintiff's conduct, including reducing her claim at trial, frustrating document preparation, failing to respond to undertakings, and rejecting settlement offers.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding the defendant $54,108.36, inclusive of legal fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court declined to award enhanced costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct, while impacting costs, did not meet the "reprehensible" threshold required for such an award, as established in *Davies v. Clarington (Municipality)*.

The court emphasized the principle of reasonableness in fixing costs, as per *Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario)*, and considered the complexity of the legal issues involved.

The plaintiff sued her former employer for constructive dismissal and human rights violations after returning from maternity leave.

The employer required her to start work at 8:30 a.m., whereas she previously had flexibility to arrive later due to childcare.

The court found that the employer had not changed the essential terms of her employment, as she was always expected to be available in the early mornings when required.

The court also dismissed the human rights claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish family status discrimination and failed to cooperate in the accommodation process by withholding information about her childcare situation.