Nightingale J.

The applicant sought to quash the Regional Municipality of Niagara's Woodland Conservation Bylaw, arguing it was ultra vires, conflicted with a historic Crown Patent and provincial statutes, and was impermissibly vague.

The applicant contended that the Crown's previous relinquishment of tree reservations meant the municipality could not regulate tree destruction on the property.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the bylaw was a valid exercise of the municipality's regulatory powers under section 135 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Crown Patent did not supersede provincial or municipal authority to regulate land use, and the bylaw's definitions were sufficiently clear.

The plaintiff, an experienced horseman and stable operator, suffered severe facial injuries while leading the defendant's horse.

There were no witnesses to the incident.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in strict liability (scienter) and negligence, alleging the horse had a dangerous propensity to rear and that the defendant used improper training techniques.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence that the horse had a prior dangerous propensity to rear vertically or that the defendant's training methods were negligent.

The court also assessed damages provisionally and held that the plaintiff's illegal immigration status did not bar his claim under the ex turpi causa doctrine.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

Two years after the accident, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke that left him totally disabled.

The central issue was whether the accident caused the stroke due to the plaintiff's alleged increased smoking and sedentary lifestyle following the collision.

The court found the stroke was an unrelated intervening event, relying on expert evidence that the plaintiff's heavy smoking predated the accident and his lifestyle was not sufficiently sedentary to cause a deep vein thrombosis.

The court awarded $100,000 in general damages for the accident-related chronic pain and mechanical back issues, but denied future income loss and most future care costs, as the plaintiff's total disability was caused by the non-compensable stroke.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality after slipping and falling on an icy city sidewalk.

The city had no policy to call in maintenance operators before their regular 7:00 a.m. start time to address icy conditions caused by overnight thaw-freeze cycles, despite having a policy to do so for 8 cm of snow.

The court found the city's policy unreasonable and held the city grossly negligent under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the plaintiff was found 50% contributorily negligent for wearing running shoes instead of winter boots and failing to walk around the visible ice.

A long‑serving dealership manager brought a wrongful dismissal action after his employer terminated him for alleged alcohol use at work and for allegedly driving company vehicles while impaired.

The employer relied on complaints from staff and a purported zero‑tolerance policy on alcohol consumption during work hours.

The court found the allegations vague, unsubstantiated, and largely unsupported by the evidence, and determined that the alleged policy had never been clearly communicated or incorporated into the employment contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause from McKinley and proportionality principles from Dowling, the court held that the conduct did not justify summary dismissal and that progressive discipline would have been appropriate.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on five months’ reasonable notice.

Following a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for unpaid litigation loans, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs and an order that the defendant's lawyer be held personally liable for a portion of the costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the matter was not complex and the plaintiff's costs claims were excessive.

The court declined to order costs against the defendant's lawyer personally, despite finding she made careless and misleading statements in her costs submissions, as the high threshold for such an order was not met.

Post-judgment interest was awarded at the contractual rate of 19.5%.

The applicants sought a review and adjustment of the accounts of a private receiver and its legal counsel regarding the windup of a bankrupt company.

The court found that the receiver's fees of over $106,000 and legal fees of over $35,000 were excessive given the simplicity of the receivership, the extensive assistance provided by the debtor, and an initial estimate of $30,000 to $50,000.

The court reduced the receiver's fees to $50,000 and the legal fees to $28,516.79, and ordered the receiver to release $50,000 in surplus funds it had withheld.

An insurer brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent’s injuries did not arise from an “accident” within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had tripped over a motorcycle that had been temporarily parked in a pedestrian walkway at a campsite and sustained serious spinal injuries.

Applying the two‑part purpose and causation test from Amos and subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the court held that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted the use or operation of an automobile.

The motorcycle’s placement in the walkway was found to be the dominant feature causing the injuries and created an unbroken chain of causation.

The court declared that the incident was an “accident” under the SABs.

In this family law costs decision following a custody and child support trial, the successful responding party sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle.

The court held that the offer did not satisfy Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because the trial result was not as favourable as or more favourable than the offer.

However, the responding party was entitled to partial indemnity costs because she succeeded on the major issues, including residence of the children and guideline child support.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs after considering the reasonableness of counsel's rate and time, the importance of the issues, and the unsuccessful party's ability to pay.

The plaintiffs, private lenders, advanced mortgage funds to the defendants for the purchase of a farm and equipment, secured by a general security agreement (GSA) on the equipment.

The defendant who sold the farm and equipment later removed and sold some of the equipment after the purchasers defaulted and the plaintiffs took possession of the farm.

The plaintiffs sued the seller for conversion and the purchaser for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court found that property in the equipment passed to the purchaser on closing, giving the plaintiffs a valid GSA.

The seller was found liable for conversion and ordered to pay $35,533 in damages.

The claims against the purchaser and the seller's counterclaim and crossclaim were dismissed.