Neal J. Smitheman

The appellants sought to transfer a proceeding before the Mining and Lands Tribunal to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent had commenced the Tribunal proceeding under section 181(2) of the Mining Act to require the appellants to pay their share of expenditures for mining development.

The appellants argued that an alleged oral agreement absolved them of any obligation to contribute and that this contract matter should be adjudicated by the Superior Court as a preliminary issue.

The application judge refused the transfer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to transfer, finding that the Tribunal had specialized expertise in mining matters and that section 181(4) of the Mining Act provided the appellants with a procedure to raise their oral agreement defence before the Tribunal.

The applicants sought to transfer an application from the Mining and Lands Tribunal to the Superior Court of Justice under s. 107 of the Mining Act, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over patented mining claims and issues of private property and civil rights.

The respondent contended the Tribunal had exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction.

The court found that the Tribunal had at least concurrent jurisdiction, particularly regarding expenditures under s. 181 of the Mining Act, and that the issues fell squarely within the Tribunal's expertise.

The court dismissed the application to transfer the proceeding, emphasizing the Tribunal's specialized knowledge and efficient procedures for such matters.

The plaintiff staked unpatented mining claims on Crown land where the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) planned to build a realigned highway.

The plaintiff subsequently applied for aggregate permits, which were delayed and limited due to the highway construction.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming the MTO expropriated the property and sought compensation for the lost aggregate value.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that an unpatented mining claim is not 'land' under the Expropriations Act.

The court further held that even if it were land, the claims had no value because the plaintiff could not have obtained an aggregate permit for the entire property, and the property was not wrongfully downzoned.

The applicant municipality successfully obtained an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from blockading various development sites and successfully defended a motion to quash its by-laws.

The applicant subsequently sought its costs of the proceedings.

The respondents argued they were public interest litigants and that costs should be in the cause or paid by the province.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the respondents' unlawful conduct necessitated the litigation and they were not acting in the public interest.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $350,000, significantly reducing the $887,000 claimed due to duplication, excessive time, and the exclusion of costs for a court-ordered consultation process.

The appellant elevator maintenance contractor appealed convictions under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and Ontario Regulation 209/01 arising from an elevator failure that injured several individuals.

The trial judge convicted the appellant on several strict liability offences relating to inspection failures, unsafe operation of an elevating device, and failure to maintain proper log books, and imposed substantial fines.

On appeal under the Provincial Offences Act, the appellant argued jurisdictional error due to a lost original Information, misinterpretation of regulatory obligations, improper application of the Kienapple principle, and an excessive sentence.

The Superior Court held that reliance on a duplicate Information did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, that the evidence supported the convictions, and that the trial judge properly rejected the due diligence defence.

The court also found no error in the refusal to stay certain counts or in the quantum of the fines.

Following the granting of an interim injunction restraining individuals from interfering with development activities on privately owned land, the court determined costs of the application.

The responding parties argued that costs should not be awarded because the litigation raised public interest issues relating to Indigenous title and burial grounds.

The court rejected this characterization, finding the respondents engaged in trespass and intimidation rather than advancing their claims through lawful court processes.

Applying the proportionality principles under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court fixed partial indemnity costs.

Costs of $12,500 were awarded to the applicants as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.