Marty Randolph Joel Gobin

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action against two defendants as an abuse of process, finding it to be a collateral attack on a prior Small Claims Court proceeding regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement.

The court held that the plaintiff's claim was a pre-emptive collateral attack and that allowing it to proceed would force the defendants to fight a "two-front war." The court also addressed the status of the claim against a third defendant, Dixon, and clarified the application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought an ex parte request under Rule 2.1.01(1) to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff failed to respond to two notices from the Registrar regarding the court's consideration of dismissal.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim, issued April 26, 2024, arose on March 15, 2020, when the defendants defaulted on lease payments.

As such, the claim was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and was therefore dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants requested the court to dismiss the action brought by the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01(1), arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, statute-barred, and improperly commenced in the Superior Court.

The court, acting on this ex parte request, issued a notice to the plaintiff.

As the plaintiff failed to file submissions, the court directed a fresh notice be issued and stayed the action pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, pending the outcome of the Rule 2.1 hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a telephone conference call to receive status updates and organize the hearing of an appeal regarding a zoning by-law in the Municipality of Clarington.

The parties informed the Tribunal that a procedural order and issues list were being finalized and that mediation was not an option.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on November 14, 2022.

The applicant sought to rezone his property to permit commercial uses, including a convenience store, which the municipality approved.

The appellant, who operates a competing convenience store next door, appealed the decision.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act, arguing the appeal was brought in bad faith to prevent market competition and lacked legitimate planning grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's uncontradicted expert planning evidence raised legitimate land use planning issues regarding site size, parking, and loading conflicts that warranted a full hearing.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude the appeal was brought solely for delay or in bad faith.

The Crown charged Proformance Group Insurance Solutions Inc. with failing to comply with an Employment Standards Order to pay $4,867.72 in unpaid wages, contrary to section 132 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The defendant did not appeal or seek judicial review of the Order.

The defendant's director testified that the corporation had ceased operations in May 2016, before the Order was issued in October 2016, and that the corporation lacked financial resources to comply.

The court found that the defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence, as it took no reasonable steps to attempt compliance and made no efforts to obtain financing.

The court convicted the defendant.