Nicholas Macos

The appellant appealed from an order of the Superior Court dismissing his preliminary motion to challenge the authenticity of a joint venture agreement through forensic document examination.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge had mischaracterized the nature of the preliminary motion and made material factual errors in his analysis.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside portions of the October order, and reinstated the April order pending the appellant's opportunity to bring a motion in Superior Court regarding the document's authenticity.

The court also preserved the respondent's right to pursue relief if the appellant failed to bring such motion within 30 days.

The respondent retained its costs award from the application judge, and no costs were awarded on the appeal.

The municipality brought a motion seeking dismissal of a counterclaim for delay arising from alleged flooding and property damage related to road drainage work.

The counterclaiming party had failed to comply with a status hearing timetable requiring agreement on a discovery plan and delivery of an affidavit of documents.

Applying Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held it had jurisdiction to dismiss the counterclaim on motion for non‑compliance with a timetable arising from a status hearing.

The counterclaiming party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the prolonged delay and did not establish that the moving party would suffer no non‑compensable prejudice.

The court dismissed the counterclaim for delay.

The applicant, a clothing store owner who provided gowns for a beauty pageant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability after she was asked to leave the preliminary competition and denied entry to the final event.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's belief that her treatment was linked to a protected ground was based on speculation rather than evidence.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought a liquor licence for a new restaurant and patio, requesting operating hours until 2:00 a.m.

Local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, increased traffic, and disruption to a nearby public swimming area, and requested that service end at 10:00 p.m. on the patio and 11:00 p.m. inside.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors did not fully meet the onus to prove that the requested hours were against the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the licence but imposed compromise conditions, including ceasing alcohol service on the patio at midnight (Monday-Saturday) and inside at 1:00 a.m., along with noise and lighting restrictions.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Rockwood Nightclub Inc. for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises, contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

During an inspection, AGCO inspectors and police officers observed a highly intoxicated female patron on the premises.

The Board found that the patron exhibited pronounced signs of intoxication and that the Licensee ought to have recognized her condition earlier.

The Board also found that the Licensee failed to take reasonable and timely steps to escort her out, improperly delegating the task to a promoter and another patron.

The Board concluded that the Licensee permitted drunkenness and contravened the regulation.

At a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board ordered the Licensee and the Registrar to exchange witness lists, detailed summaries of witness evidence, and any further disclosure at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The licensee sought an amendment to the dates of a previously ordered 14-day liquor licence suspension.

The Registrar did not oppose the request.

The Board ordered the suspension to commence on March 3, 2010, instead of March 1, 2010.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Rockwood Nightclub Inc. The Board ordered both the Licensee and the Registrar to provide mutual disclosure, including witness lists and summaries of evidence, ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.