Matthieu C. Charron

The court dismissed a proposed class action for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff failed to advance the proceeding for over six years after being ordered to deliver amended materials.

The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to advance the case, failed to comply with court-ordered timetables, and did not provide evidence to justify an adjournment.

The dismissal does not prejudice putative class members, as they may commence a new proceeding on the same grounds.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries sustained by Sandra Bernier during a cycling event.

The defendants and third party brought summary judgment motions, arguing the action was barred by a signed waiver and voluntary assumption of risk.

The court found the waiver enforceable against the plaintiff, including her children's claims under the Family Law Act, and that it covered the alleged negligence, including negligent organization and road maintenance.

The court also found the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk.

The summary judgment motions were granted, and the action was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion under Rule 61.09(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to perfect her appeal from a Small Claims Court decision without filing a trial transcript.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that her appeal had apparent merit or that it could be appropriately argued without a transcript, given the nature of the evidentiary errors alleged.

Costs of $600 were awarded to the respondent.

VIA Rail appealed the Assessment Review Board's decision regarding the property tax assessment of the Ottawa railway station for the years 2009 to 2012.

VIA argued that because its national passenger railway service operates at a loss, the station suffers from 100% economic obsolescence and should be assessed at a nominal value.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision to assess the property using the replacement cost method less depreciation, finding that the Board reasonably concluded there was no empirical evidence to support 100% economic obsolescence given the station's ongoing use and value as a railway facility.

The applicant, a federal crown corporation operating a national passenger railway, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of its Ottawa passenger station for municipal taxation purposes.

The applicant argued the station had only nominal value due to the lack of a competitive market for passenger rail, while the respondent argued for a hypothetical market value.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's decision to create a hypothetical market and noting the case involved an important question of law regarding the valuation of railway stations.

Following a summary judgment decision awarding damages for conversion, the plaintiff requested clarification regarding unresolved claims for unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

The court held that the unjust enrichment claim had been pleaded only as an alternative to conversion and therefore did not require adjudication once conversion was established.

The court acknowledged that the prior reasons failed to address the punitive damages claim and considered it in this supplementary endorsement.

It concluded that the defendants’ conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.

The claim for punitive damages was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff subcontractor moved for summary judgment arising from a bridge construction dispute after the original general contractor became insolvent.

The motion concerned customized arch assembly jigs and a modified power container that remained on site and were then used by a replacement contractor to complete the project.

The court held that title to the equipment never passed under the subcontract, that the defendants’ refusal to permit removal was unreasonable, and that both defendants were liable in conversion.

Summary judgment was granted, damages were fixed at $135,600, and motion costs of $20,000 were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner and new general contractor for the tort of conversion.

After the original general contractor became insolvent, the plaintiff sought to remove its custom-built equipment from the construction site.

The defendants refused access, claiming the equipment had been paid for under the original contract.

The court found that title to the equipment never passed to the defendants and their refusal to allow the plaintiff to retrieve it constituted conversion.

Summary judgment was granted and damages were awarded based on the defendants' previous counter-offer to purchase the equipment.

The applicants sought to subdivide land and appealed draft conditions to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing Charter violations.

The City successfully moved to strike the Charter issues.

Nine months later, the applicants sought reconsideration, which the Board refused.

A single judge of the Divisional Court denied leave to appeal that refusal.

The applicants then moved before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the single judge's decision.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding the single judge did not decline jurisdiction and reasonably concluded the Board's emphasis on finality and procedural rules was appropriate.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Chair, which dismissed their request for review of an earlier OMB decision regarding draft plan conditions for a subdivision.

The applicants argued the Chair erred in applying the public interest test to deny an extension of time, applied the wrong legal test to strike Charter arguments, failed to recognize Charter rights related to home ownership, and ignored new evidence about inconsistent slope setbacks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Chair's decision on any of the grounds raised.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which upheld a five-year moratorium on new country lot subdivisions in the City of Ottawa's Official Plan.

The OMB had found the moratorium was authorized under s. 16 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's interpretation, particularly given that s. 38 of the Planning Act specifically limits interim control by-laws prohibiting development to a maximum of two years.

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault, sexual assault, harassment, intentional infliction of mental distress, discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and negligence arising from her arrest by police officers following an altercation during a traffic stop.

The court considered whether the officers used excessive force during the arrest and detention, whether sexualized comments and touching constituted sexual assault, and whether the conduct amounted to intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court relied in part on the plaintiff’s prior guilty plea to obstructing a police officer and accepted the officers’ evidence that the plaintiff had bodychecked one officer and resisted arrest.

It held that the police were justified in using reasonable force under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code and that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged torts on a balance of probabilities.

Claims under s. 46.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code were also dismissed because the provision was not in force at the time of the events.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service discriminated against her on the basis of race and perceived disability.

The applicant claimed that a police report describing her as a 'black woman' and referencing public mischief was generated because the police perceived her to have a mental illness.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that could establish a link between the police report and her race or perceived disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his Small Claims Court action against OC Transpo for delay and failure to commence the claim within the applicable limitation period.

The appellant alleged he was injured on two separate occasions while riding OC Transpo buses due to the negligent modification of the buses.

The Divisional Court found that the pith and substance of the claim was for personal injury arising from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, making it subject to the two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by his delay and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Following the dismissal of three proceedings brought by the self-represented respondent, the applicant municipality sought costs of $6,472.

The respondent argued costs should be waived due to his limited resources and the public interest nature of the issues.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, noting he had been warned about the merits of the proceedings but proceeded anyway.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed costs by 20% due to issues with their documentation, fixing costs at $5,177.60.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing they were denied a fair hearing before the appeal court judge.

At the lower appeal hearing, the appellants requested an adjournment due to late service of the respondent's factum.

The judge asked counsel to explain the case to determine if an adjournment was warranted, but then proceeded to dismiss the appeal without ruling on the adjournment or inviting submissions on the merits.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the process lacked the appearance of a fair hearing because counsel were not given the opportunity to make submissions on the merits.

The decision was set aside and a new hearing was ordered before a different judge.