Patricia D’Souza

The court considered a motion for summary judgment in a civil action arising from a criminal prosecution for fraud against Anthony Falasca.

The plaintiffs alleged malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance, failure to withdraw the charge, and abuse of process.

The court found that the claims relating to the criminal prosecution, including abuse of process, were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the action was commenced after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court declined to consider the separate abuse of process claim relating to a bankruptcy proceeding, as it was not properly before the court on this motion.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of discoverability and the application of limitation periods in prosecutorial torts.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking her claim against the City of Hamilton and a bylaw officer for harassment and bad faith.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Judge erred in concluding the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction, as the appellant was not properly served with the property standards order under the Building Code Act.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as Ontario does not recognize a free-standing civil tort of harassment.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's request for the Tribunal to adjudicate the cost-sharing value of stormwater management land required to be conveyed as a condition of draft plan approval.

The municipality argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the issue was res judicata due to a prior settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the previous agreement on land value had an explicit expiry date of May 31, 2017, which had passed.

Under section 51(56) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal has the authority to determine the question as to the conditions appealed to it, including the expired cost-sharing condition, warranting a hearing on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal zoning by-law that added a motor vehicle service station as a permitted use on the respondent's property.

The application was brought more than four years after the by-law was enacted.

The applicant argued that the municipality failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed amendment, denying it the right to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application due to the significant delay, finding that the municipality had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that the delay caused prejudice to the respondents who had relied on the by-law.