7 total
Condominium tenant ordered to comply with noise rules; eviction denied as too draconian.
The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to evict a tenant and her disabled son due to ongoing noise complaints and nuisance, or alternatively an order for compliance with condominium rules.
The unit owner brought a separate application to vacate a lien for legal costs registered against the unit.
The court found the tenant had breached the rules but held that eviction was too draconian a remedy.
The court ordered the tenant to comply with the rules and the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
The court upheld the lien and awarded partial costs to the condominium corporation, noting both parties had adopted overly confrontational positions.
Regulator ordered to pay costs after unsuccessful unauthorized practice application.
Following dismissal of an application by a professional regulatory body seeking to restrain alleged unauthorized practice under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $127,000.
The regulator argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding raised novel public-interest issues concerning regulation of professional forestry and the enforcement of statutory duties.
The court held that while regulators acting in the public interest may sometimes avoid costs, they are not automatically exempt from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
Given the vigorous litigation pursued against the respondent, partial indemnity costs were appropriate.
The court awarded $90,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondents.
Application for unauthorized practice dismissed; expert evidence rejected for bias and supervision exception applied.
The Ontario Professional Foresters Association (OPFA) brought an application against the respondent for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of professional forestry and using prohibited designations under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000.
The OPFA relied heavily on the expert opinion of a former OPFA president.
The court found the expert evidence inadmissible due to a lack of independence and objectivity.
The court also held that the respondent was entitled to the statutory exception for work performed under the supervision of a registered professional forester, and that the quality of that supervision was not a relevant factor for the exception.
The court concluded the respondent did not breach the Act and dismissed the application.
Successful appeal respondent awarded partial indemnity costs.
Following the dismissal of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the successful respondent sought costs of the appeal.
The unsuccessful appellants conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but argued that counsel’s time was excessive and that disbursements should be reduced.
The court reviewed the bill of costs and found no basis to conclude that the time spent was excessive.
Applying the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.
Small Claims Court finding of trespass and damages upheld; no palpable and overriding error found.
The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding they had trespassed on the respondent's property by erecting fence posts and a gate.
The trial judge awarded damages for the cost of a survey, a culvert, and legal fees.
On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding the property line and the status of the road, and that some damages were statute-barred.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's preference for the respondent's surveyor's evidence, and noting the limitations argument was not properly raised or founded.
Court rejects public interest costs exemption and awards $170,000 after divided success.
A costs decision following an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act concerning alleged conflicts of interest by a municipal official.
The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $394,000.
The court considered whether the unsuccessful applicant should be relieved from a costs award on the basis that the litigation was brought in the public interest, applying the factors from St. James’ Preservation Society v. Toronto (City).
The court concluded the litigation was not genuine public interest litigation, noting partisan political motivations and the limited practical significance of the application.
Considering divided success on several substantive issues and the need to balance deterrence of frivolous litigation against discouraging citizens from seeking public office, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded $170,000 in costs.
MCIA proceedings need not automatically proceed to trial.
A municipal conflict of interest application sought removal of a mayor from office under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
The respondent mayor brought a motion to convert the proceeding from an application to an action requiring a full trial with viva voce evidence.
The court held that the Act does not require all such proceedings to proceed by trial and that applications may be determined on affidavit evidence, subject to the court’s discretion to order oral evidence or a trial of issues where necessary.
At this preliminary stage, the evidentiary record was incomplete and it was premature to determine whether material facts were in dispute.
The motion to convert the proceeding to an action was therefore dismissed without prejudice.
