8 total
Tribunal amends decision to correct appearances list.
The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in the appearances list of its May 6, 2024 decision.
The amendment added the applicant and its counsel to the list of parties and representatives.
Tribunal sets procedural directions and schedules second CMC for quarry expansion appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a quarry expansion.
The Tribunal recognized the invalidity of premature appeals regarding a local Official Plan Amendment, which were dismissed.
The Applicant was granted party status, and directions were provided for a non-appellant to seek party status.
A second Case Management Conference was scheduled, and deadlines were set for the exchange of issues lists and witness information.
Claims against individual college employees struck for failing to plead independent tortious acts outside employment scope.
The plaintiff, a paralegal student, sued Mohawk College and several of its employees for defamation and negligence arising from emails sent by a community placement liaison regarding his past employment.
The individual college employees moved to strike the claims against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b).
The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to plead material facts establishing that the employees committed independent tortious acts or acted outside the scope of their employment.
The claims against the individual employees were struck without leave to amend.
Full indemnity costs of $17,253 awarded to respondent following dismissal of unmeritorious leave to appeal application.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs decision, which was previously denied.
The court then addressed the costs of the leave application.
The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the matter was complex, unnecessarily lengthened by the applicant, and entirely successful.
The court agreed, noting the applicant's late filings, lack of merit, incomplete materials, and allegations of bias.
The applicant was ordered to pay $17,253.00 in full indemnity costs.
Costs of $35,000 awarded to successful police defendants following dismissed assault and negligence action.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for assault and negligence against the police board and an officer, the defendants sought costs of approximately $65,000.
The plaintiff argued for $15,000.
The court noted the plaintiff's unreasonable settlement expectations and the defendants' sincere, though non-compliant, Rule 49 offer.
The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis.
Full indemnity costs awarded to respondent due to applicant's delay, incomplete materials, and meritless appeal.
The court then received written submissions regarding the costs of the leave to appeal application.
The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent full indemnity costs in the amount of $17,253.00.
Action for assault and negligence against police dismissed; arrest was lawful and psychiatric injury unforeseeable.
The plaintiff sued a police officer and the police services board for assault and negligence following a traffic stop and arrest.
The plaintiff, who was pulled over by an unmarked police car for speeding, claimed he did not realize the officer was police and alleged the arrest caused him physical soreness and severe PTSD.
The court dismissed the action, finding the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for evading police and used minimal force.
The court also held that the plaintiff's alleged psychiatric injury was not foreseeable, as it stemmed from his peculiar personality structure rather than the defendants' actions.
Leave to appeal costs order dismissed due to procedural deficiencies and failure to meet strict test.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $36,912.82 arising from four motions in a contentious divorce proceeding.
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the procedural rules for leave applications, including failing to file transcripts and the underlying reasons for the decision.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's costs award.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.