Natalie Mullins

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of a waste stockpile from a property and brought motions for a stay of the Order pending the disposition of the appeal.

The parties reached an agreement on granting partial stays.

The Tribunal found no statutory bars to granting the stays under the Environmental Protection Act and concluded that the serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience tests were satisfied.

The Tribunal granted the partial stays on consent, extending the compliance dates for various work items.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to address contamination from a former manufactured gas plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving the revocation of the original order, the issuance of a new order specifying risk management measures for the affected properties, and the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the issuance of the new order.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to add new defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was unnecessarily complicated by the responding parties.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as there was no reprehensible conduct by the opposing parties.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable jointly and severally by the responding parties within 30 days, rejecting the suggestion to reserve costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add a new corporate defendant and several individual defendants, and to amend their Statement of Claim to increase damages to $8,000,000 and assert claims of fraud.

The plaintiffs alleged that the original defendant transferred its business and assets to the new corporate defendant to defeat the plaintiffs' claims regarding environmental contamination advice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs moved with sufficient dispatch upon discovering the new corporation and that the allegations were more conveniently dealt with in the present action.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.

The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contamination associated with a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeals to allow for continued discussions and the implementation of work plans.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and reasonable as progress was being made and there was no immediate threat to human health or the environment.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement a remedial action plan to address diesel contamination originating from a concrete batch plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the installation of a barrier wall, additional groundwater monitoring, and financial assurance.

The Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement under Rule 201 of its Rules of Practice, found the agreement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act to protect the natural environment, and dismissed the appeals, directing the Director to amend the order accordingly.

The appellants appealed an order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring them to delineate off-site contamination.

After an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion, the appellants withdrew their remaining grounds of appeal on the basis that the order's requirements had been or would be substantially complied with.

The Director consented to the withdrawal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order regarding waste street sweepings and sought an interim stay pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The Director consented to the interim stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar under sections 143(2) or 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the interim stay on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to prevent adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants at a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties agreed to two work plans and requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for the implementation of these plans and to amend the compliance dates in the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found the adjournment request fair and reasonable under Rule 105 and granted the adjournment to June 2017 for a status update.

Following a motion decision, the court addressed correspondence from counsel regarding the description of a costs request and the resulting costs award.

The moving defendants argued that the court had misstated their requested costs by referencing an amount calculated on an actual-rate basis rather than the lower partial indemnity amount.

The court reviewed the cost outlines and confirmed that the figure referenced in the earlier endorsement was used only as a convenient measure for reducing the successful party’s requested costs due to deficiencies in the statement of claim.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to vary the previously fixed costs award.

Following a discovery motion in which the plaintiffs successfully obtained production of documents previously refused by the municipal defendant, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought more than $15,000 on a scale slightly above partial indemnity, while the defendant argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be limited to a much smaller amount.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the successful party was generally entitled to costs but that the amounts claimed were excessive and that elevated costs were not justified absent reprehensible conduct.

Considering proportionality and the plaintiffs’ lack of complete success, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the municipal defendant to answer undertakings and produce documents relating to expert evidence arising from environmental contamination litigation.

The court considered Rules 31.06 and 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing disclosure of expert findings, opinions, and materials reviewed by experts.

Because the defendant intended to call its environmental expert at trial, the court held that the expert’s memoranda, email communications, and materials reviewed by the expert were producible to permit the opposing party to test the opinion evidence.

Although the defendant had undertaken not to call a valuation expert, a partial disclosure of a letter from that expert was ordered because it had been reviewed and used as instructions for the testifying expert.

The motion was granted with production orders and compliance deadlines.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for a new home built by Maple Crest by Serrani Inc. The claims involved an allegedly incorrect transom over garden doors, scratched windows, and a front elevation that differed from the architectural rendering.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transom shape was not specified in the agreement, the applicant failed to prove the builder caused the window scratches not noted on the pre-delivery inspection, and the agreement permitted the builder to alter external elevations from the artist's conceptions.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that an exchange of correspondence did not constitute a binding agreement of purchase and sale for the Guelph Storm.

They also appealed the application judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs to the respondent on a merged contempt and enforcement application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contract formation analysis, and upholding the costs award due to the appellants' prolonged delay and attempts to avoid their obligations.

The appellants appealed an order finding that a debt to Kroll had been established and that the bankruptcy petitions were not filed for an improper purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was evidence to support the trial judge's findings and no basis to interfere.