Michael Dineen

The applicant, who lost a municipal school trustee election by a single vote, sought a recount under s. 58 of the Municipal Elections Act.

The court distinguished between undervotes and overvotes/adjudicated ballots.

While dismissing the request for a recount of the 258 undervotes due to their common nature and lack of specific evidence of error, the court found objective grounds to doubt the result based on a single overvote and an unknown number of adjudicated mail-in ballots.

Consequently, a narrow recount was ordered for the overvote and adjudicated ballots to ensure fairness and avoid disenfranchising voters, given the extremely close margin.

The applicant sought an order recognizing ownership of a narrow strip of land through adverse possession or, alternatively, under s. 37 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act due to lasting improvements made under the belief of ownership.

The respondent sought dismissal and removal of structures.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish adverse possession, as it could not reliably determine the effective boundary before 1996 renovations.

However, the court granted the applicant title to the disputed area under s. 37, finding that lasting improvements were made under an honest belief of ownership and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant retaining the land.

The respondent was entitled to compensation for the land, and the parties were encouraged to negotiate the amount.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party.

The plaintiffs, owners of a downtown Toronto office tower, sued the defendants, operators of the building's parking garage, for unpaid fixed monthly fees from April 2020 to April 2021.

The defendants ceased full payments due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on revenue, arguing a binding oral agreement to reduce fees, the application of a force majeure clause, and contract frustration.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding no valid amendment to the contract due to a "no oral modification" clause and lack of consideration, no detrimental reliance for promissory estoppel, and that neither the force majeure clause nor the doctrine of frustration applied as the contract merely became unprofitable, not impossible to perform.

The plaintiff mortgage syndicate brought a motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim regarding a defaulted second mortgage.

The defendants, who had not made any payments, alleged unparticularized fraudulent behaviour by the plaintiffs' agents.

The court struck the statement of defence and counterclaim as they disclosed no reasonable defence or cause of action.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded full indemnity costs.

The applicant, Christina Atkinson, moved to set aside an assessment officer's order that upheld her former lawyers' (Whaley Estate Litigation - WEL) account in full after a four-day hearing.

WEL cross-moved to dismiss Atkinson's motion and confirm the assessment, arguing that Atkinson's failure to make objections to the assessment pursuant to Rule 58.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure meant there was no jurisdiction to consider her challenge.

The court dismissed Atkinson's motion, finding that objections were required for the specific issues raised, which were not jurisdictional.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the assessment officer's credibility findings or his assessment of WEL's skill, competence, and the result achieved, despite the client's ultimate dissatisfaction with the outcome.