5 total
Motion for non-party document production on cross-examination dismissed to avoid preempting pending Rule 30.10 motion.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.10 for the disclosure of documents referenced in an affidavit sworn by a non-party, and to compel answers to questions refused during the non-party's cross-examination.
The requested documents were a subset of those sought in an underlying, pending Rule 30.10 motion for non-party production.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this stage would interfere with the orderly progress of the action, risk inconsistent findings with the pending Rule 30.10 motion, and disturb the fairness of the procedure for seeking non-party productions.
An action to enforce a Quebec default judgment in Ontario was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.
The plaintiff sought to enforce a 2008 Quebec default judgment against the defendants in Ontario.
The defendants raised a two-year limitation period defence under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiff argued that the action was not prescribed due to acknowledgment of debt, discoverability, or promissory estoppel.
The court found no valid written acknowledgment, rejected the discoverability argument as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the defendants were domiciled in Ontario and had means to enforce the judgment, and dismissed the promissory estoppel claim due to a lack of evidence of an intention to affect legal relations regarding the limitation period.
The action was dismissed as prescribed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.
Judicial review of IPC order dismissed; Adjudicator reasonably found university had control over subsidiary's records.
York University and York University Development Corporation (YUDC) sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision denying their request for reconsideration of an order requiring the production of certain records.
The applicants argued the Adjudicator erred in finding the records were under the control of York University pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and in her approach to the reconsideration threshold.
The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Adjudicator reasonably applied the two-part control test from National Defence and reasonably placed the onus on the applicants to establish grounds for reconsideration.
Property tax exemption denied as applicant relied on hypothetical future use rather than actual operations.
The applicant, a charitable non-profit corporation, sought a declaration that a portion of its property leased to a day school was exempt from municipal taxation under paragraph 5 of s. 3(1) of the Assessment Act.
The applicant argued that if it occupied the space itself, it would use it for the relief of the poor, thereby qualifying for the exemption under paragraph 12(iii).
The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory language requires an objective assessment of the owner's actual nature and operations, not hypothetical future uses, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate it was currently organized and engaged primarily in the relief of the poor or supported by public funds.
Leave to appeal property assessment valuation denied as grounds raised factual issues, not questions of law.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of his property.
Appeals from the Board are limited to questions of law.
The applicant argued the Board erred in its use of comparable properties, application of the burden of proof, and consideration of equity.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's arguments raised questions of fact or mixed law and fact, not extricable questions of law, and failed to raise any important legal question meriting appellate review.
