Matthew M. Shoemaker

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from using his rural-zoned property as a contractor's yard, sawmill, or for commercial activities, alleging breach of zoning by-laws and nuisance (noise, drainage).

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of a "clear breach" of the by-law or irreparable harm, and that the respondent's activities were consistent with personal property development plans.

The court also noted that some alleged issues were outside the purview of the by-law the applicants sought to enforce.

Darien Aggregates Inc. brought a motion to determine whether an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment by North Shore Environmental Resource Advocates Inc. was moot.

The zoning by-law amendment permitted a new quarry on Crown land.

Darien argued that under s. 34(9) of the Aggregate Resources Act, a zoning by-law cannot prohibit or regulate the establishment of a quarry on Crown land, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the outcome of the appeal would have no practical effect on the Ministry's ability to issue an aggregate permit.

The Tribunal also held that municipal by-laws cannot regulate the operation of quarries on Crown land.

The motion was allowed and the appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to satisfy undertakings to use "best efforts" to locate two witnesses and provide will-say statements.

The plaintiffs initially provided no details of their efforts.

After an adjournment, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit detailing searches of invoices, the internet, LinkedIn, and Canada411.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs should have "cold called" other contractors in the area.

The court found that "best efforts" does not require exhausting every conceivable avenue and held the undertakings were satisfied, dismissing the motion.

However, because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of their efforts until after the motion was brought, the court awarded costs of $1,275 to the defendants.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit aggregate extraction on Crown lands.

The parties raised a threshold issue regarding whether recent amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act render the appeal moot.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion to determine whether the Aggregate Resources Act permits municipal by-laws to regulate quarries on Crown land and whether the appeal is moot.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the successful defendant sought costs including substantial indemnity costs after a rejected settlement offer under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the interaction of Rules 49.10, 49.13, and 57.01 and the jurisprudence governing elevated cost awards.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs require reprehensible or egregious conduct unless specifically triggered by Rule 49.10, which did not apply where the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

As there was no misconduct by the plaintiff, elevated costs were not warranted.

The court nevertheless awarded the successful defendant partial indemnity costs in a reduced amount reflecting fairness and reasonable expectations.