5 total
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; finding of significant threat to public safety upheld.
The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1984, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention in a general forensic unit.
The Board found that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his explosive anger, untreated paranoia, and lack of insight.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant threat was reasonable and that it correctly applied the least onerous and least restrictive disposition test under the Criminal Code.
Appeal dismissed; an Ontario Securities Commission ruling is not a contract under the Condominium Act.
The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out several paragraphs of its pleading.
The motion judge held that a ruling of the Ontario Securities Commission is not a contract as required by s. 23(1)(b) of the Condominium Act.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that granting leave to amend would not cure the deficiency, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,500 following dismissal of appeal, with reductions to claimed hourly rates.
Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $13,395 for fees and $559.58 for disbursements.
The appellant objected to the hourly rates claimed for senior counsel and a student.
The Divisional Court reduced the hourly rates to $275 for senior counsel and $60 for the student, allowed the disbursements, and fixed total costs at $9,500 inclusive of disbursements plus GST.
Appeal dismissed; motion judge properly exercised discretion to refuse enforcement of an unauthorized settlement offer.
The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion for judgment on an alleged settlement.
The respondent's counsel had made a settlement offer based on instructions from an individual who managed the recreation centre but lacked authority to settle the litigation.
The appellant accepted the offer.
The motion judge found that the settlement was concluded by mistake, as the respondent never authorized the offer, and exercised his discretion not to enforce it.
The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's appreciation of the evidence or application of the legal principles regarding mistake and agency.
Developer owed no pre-contractual fiduciary duty or duty of good faith regarding unbuilt recreational lands.
The developer of a multi-phased condominium project marketed the development as having an outdoor recreational area.
The disclosure statement and related documents provided that the recreational area might not be built.
The developer later decided to build townhouses on the recreational lands instead.
The condominium corporation opposed this and obtained a permanent injunction at trial.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the developer did not owe a fiduciary duty or a duty of good faith to prospective purchasers during the pre-contractual phase.
The developer's obligations were circumscribed by the statutory disclosure requirements, which clearly stated the developer was under no obligation to build the recreational facilities.
