Patrick William Brennan

The plaintiff, CLC Tree Services Ltd., brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, alleging that the City of London granted preferential treatment in awarding arboricultural and vegetation management contracts to Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada, Limited to the exclusion of CLC.

The defendant, the City of London, brought a cross-motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from CLC's examination, arguing that CLC's allegations were based on rumours and unnamed sources and that the scope of the claim needed to be defined.

The court addressed numerous undertakings and refusals, emphasizing the importance of parties working collaboratively to resolve discovery disputes and the broad scope of oral discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted many of CLC's requests for disclosure while also ordering CLC to provide greater particularity regarding its damages claims and the factual basis for its allegations.

The London & Middlesex Housing Corporation (LMHC) brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a claim against it by a tenant, Keith Horn.

Horn alleged LMHC was liable for an assault and battery committed by another tenant, Brian Latondress, who was also employed by LMHC as a Resident Contact.

Horn claimed direct negligence in hiring Latondress and/or vicarious liability.

LMHC argued that Latondress's actions were either self-defence or an independent intentional act outside the scope of his employment.

The court dismissed LMHC's motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the nexus between Latondress's conduct and his employment, particularly concerning vicarious liability under the Salmond test and the "enterprise risk" principle.

The defendants, Kristopher Purdy (an ambulance driver) and The Corporation of The City of Greater Sudbury, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims of negligence arising from a motorcycle accident.

The plaintiff alleged that Purdy's operation of the ambulance caused the accident by startling traffic, leading an unidentified driver to brake suddenly, which forced the plaintiff to lay down his motorcycle.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report problematic, as its conclusions were based on inadmissible hearsay and contradicted by objective evidence (Automatic Vehicle Location video data).

The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action against them, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellants constructed a detached garage on their property pursuant to a building permit issued by the respondent municipality.

During construction, the appellants accessed an unopened road allowance (Ninth Street).

After completion, the respondent took the position that access via Ninth Street was not permitted and blocked the street with concrete barriers.

The appellants sued seeking removal of the barriers, an easement, or damages for breach of promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation, plus punitive damages.

The trial judge dismissed all claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding negligence, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, or punitive damages.

The defendant, having successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' action, sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing public interest litigation, novelty of issues, and impecuniosity, and challenged the quantum.

The court found the litigation was a private dispute, not public interest, and rejected the impecuniosity argument due to lack of evidence.

However, the court reduced the defendant's claimed costs, noting the defendant's conduct contributed to the litigation's length through "uneven enforcement measures" and finding several claimed amounts excessive or improper.

The court fixed costs at $30,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs sought damages for proprietary estoppel and/or negligent misrepresentation against the Town of LaSalle after the Town prohibited vehicular access to unopened road allowances, thereby restricting access to the plaintiffs' detached garage.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Town induced them to build the garage with implied permission for access via an unopened road allowance.

The court found that the Town was not aware of the plaintiffs' intention to use the unopened road allowance for vehicular access and that the plaintiffs' reliance was not reasonable.

The Town's actions were deemed a legitimate exercise of its powers to address legal, financial, and liability concerns.

The claims for proprietary estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages were dismissed.

The court also addressed the limitation period, finding the action was commenced within time.