Owen Thompson

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a costs order issued by Smith J. The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's explanation for the delay illogical and noting significant prejudice to the respondents due to the unpaid costs.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the applicant's grounds were too general and did not demonstrate a palpable and overriding error or error of law, which is required for leave to appeal costs orders.

The Regional Municipality of Halton appealed a lower court decision that found a restaurant owner not guilty of violating the Health Protection and Promotion Act for improper food temperature.

The central issue was whether the offence was one of strict or absolute liability, and if the due diligence defence was correctly applied.

The court affirmed the lower court's finding that the offence was one of strict liability, not absolute liability, and upheld the finding that the restaurant owner had exercised due diligence in addressing the refrigerator malfunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an application concerning the allocation of sale proceeds from two properties.

The court found York University largely successful in the underlying application, as nearly all remaining sale proceeds were paid to York's benefit after mortgage discharge.

The applicant's allegations were unfounded, and her conduct (attempting to list property in contravention of an order) prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded York University costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $54,705.38, and also allowed $16,813.56 for legal fees incurred by York with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, payable from the sale proceeds.

The court declined substantial indemnity costs because some relief sought by York would have been necessary anyway.

The applicant sought an equitable remedy to allocate the payment of a mortgage and a costs award from the proceeds of sale of a property (Osprey) that had been fraudulently conveyed to her, rather than from an adjacent lot.

The respondent university, a judgment creditor of the applicant's former partner, opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that previous court orders had nullified the applicant's interest in Osprey and granted the university enforcement rights against it.

The court also held that the mortgagee was entitled to pursue its remedy against the adjacent lot, and that the equitable doctrine of marshalling would have compelled this result to protect the university's unsecured interest.

The applicants were successful in their underlying matter and sought elevated costs due to the respondents' disregard for previous court orders concerning a right-of-way.

The court found the applicants' counsel's hourly rate and time spent reasonable, noting the necessity of the proceedings.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicants $16,971.24 in all-inclusive costs, payable by Brian Douglas Coldin and 1387881 Ontario Inc.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement for year-round vehicular and pedestrian traffic over the respondents' land, along with injunctions to prevent interference.

The respondents conceded a seasonal easement but proposed relocating it to a new road and limiting its use to seasonal.

The court ruled that the relocation request was not properly before it, affirmed the easement as year-round, and granted injunctions against the respondents for interfering with the easement, while allowing for one southerly gate for security.

Following a decision declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant, the applicant sought costs of $23,000.

The court declined to award costs, noting that the applicant did not come to the court with clean hands and had caused many of his own problems by engaging with the respondent.

Given the respondent's inability to pay and the desire to prevent further interaction between the parties, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought an order declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, along with injunctive relief and exemplary damages.

The respondent had initiated numerous unsuccessful Small Claims Court actions and engaged in a pattern of abusive online behaviour and correspondence.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and stayed his outstanding claims against the applicant.

However, the court declined to grant the requested injunctions or exemplary damages, finding that the applicant had engaged in similar harassing behaviour and came to the court with unclean hands.

A mutual non-communication and 200-metre distance order was imposed.

Competing applications were brought under s. 380 of the Municipal Act for payment out of surplus funds paid into court following a municipal tax sale.

A second mortgagee sought payment of the funds based on priority of encumbrances, while subsequent encumbrancers alleged improper dealings with the property and inadequate accounting during prior mortgage enforcement.

The court held that speculative allegations regarding earlier mortgage transactions and tax sale circumstances could not be adjudicated within the limited scope of a s. 380 application.

Finding that the mortgage debt owed to the second mortgagee exceeded the funds in court and that no proof supported the competing claims, the court ordered payment out of the funds to the second mortgagee according to legal priority.