Milena Protich

The third party, a solicitor who acted for the plaintiff on a property purchase, brought a motion to strike the defendant municipality's third party claim against him.

The solicitor argued that any negligence on his part was attributable to the plaintiff as contributory negligence, barring the third party claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the solicitor was acting in an advisory capacity rather than as an agent for the plaintiff.

Therefore, the alleged negligence could not be directly attributed to the plaintiff, and the third party claim for contribution and indemnity disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action for adverse possession and compelling her attendance at a judgment debtor examination.

The motion judge dismissed the action despite the respondent not requesting that relief at the hearing and without giving the appellant notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the dismissal of the action due to procedural unfairness, but upheld the order compelling the appellant's attendance at the judgment debtor examination.

A non-lawyer, Stuart Murray, sought leave to represent the plaintiff corporation, Cowal Chalmers Inc., in this action.

The defendant opposed the motion, citing Murray's disbarment and alleged inability to represent the corporation effectively.

The court, applying Rule 15.01(2) factors, granted leave, finding that as the sole shareholder, officer, and director, Murray was intricately connected to the corporation and reasonably capable of representation.

The court also found the corporation was financially unable to retain counsel, emphasizing access to justice.

Arguments regarding Murray's disbarment and a potential conflict of interest due to a third-party claim against him were considered and dismissed as not precluding his representation.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant, a claimant under the Walkerton Compensation Plan, appealed an arbitration decision awarding him $11,000 for economic losses related to the Walkerton E. coli water contamination.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate accommodation for his post-stroke limitations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and adjudicative bias.

He also challenged the arbitrator's credibility assessments and factual findings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrators had fulfilled their duty to accommodate, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the arbitrator's factual findings were reasonable and free of palpable and overriding error.

A class member in the Walkerton water contamination class action brought a preliminary motion ahead of his intended appeal of an arbitrator's decision regarding his compensation claim.

The claimant sought various forms of relief, including the bifurcation of his appeal to first address issues of fairness and accommodation, a court-ordered neuropsychological assessment, the appointment of a disability law firm to represent him, and an advance payment of $40,000.

The court dismissed all of the claimant's requests, finding no basis to bifurcate the appeal, no jurisdiction or necessity to order the assessment or appoint counsel, and no evidence to support an advance costs award.

The Administrator of the Walkerton Compensation Plan brought a motion to appoint a new arbitrator to complete a claimant's hearing after the original arbitrator died before rendering a decision.

The claimant opposed the appointment, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the proposed arbitrator was the deceased arbitrator's former law partner, and sought a hearing de novo.

The court dismissed the bias claim, appointed the proposed arbitrator, and ordered the rehearing to proceed based on the existing transcripts, by analogy to the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also awarded the claimant $15,000 in interim legal fees due to the extraordinary circumstances.

The appellants, members of a Serbian Orthodox Church congregation, appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that the congregation's elected trustees held the congregational properties in trust.

The diocesan administrative board had removed the executive board and replaced it with a temporary trusteeship following a dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not err in considering internal church documents and correctly concluded that the temporary trusteeship held the properties in trust under the Religious Organizations' Lands Act.

The Court also held that the American 'neutral principles of law' doctrine is not mandatory in Ontario church property disputes.

Following dismissal of an application seeking declaratory relief regarding control and management of church congregation property and governance, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful applicants argued no costs should be awarded due to alleged public importance, novelty, and the charitable nature of the dispute within a religious organization.

The court rejected these arguments and held that ordinary costs principles apply, emphasizing success as the primary factor under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the respondents had made a Rule 49 offer to settle, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the declaratory nature of the relief made comparison with the offer impracticable.

Costs were therefore awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

Members of a local congregation of the Serbian Orthodox Church sought declarations that elected trustees retained authority over congregational property and that diocesan authorities acted unlawfully by removing the elected executive board and appointing a temporary trusteeship.

The applicants argued that the actions violated the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act and improperly interfered with property held in trust.

The court held that the church’s hierarchical governance structure permitted the diocese to appoint a temporary trusteeship under its internal statute.

The court found no breach of provincial legislation and concluded that the dispute primarily concerned internal church governance and canon law.

Judicial intervention was therefore unwarranted and the application was dismissed.

The appellant physician performed ear surgeries using a new antiseptic introduced by the hospital, which caused profound hearing loss in two patients.

The hospital settled with the patients and sought contribution and indemnity from the appellant, arguing he was negligent in failing to inquire about the new antiseptic's properties.

The trial judge found the appellant 50% liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding no evidence that the appellant breached the standard of care or that further inquiries would have revealed the antiseptic's ototoxicity prior to the surgeries.

The hospital's claim was dismissed.