Paul A. Webber

The appellant, a wastewater user, challenged the respondent municipality's practice of charging wastewater processing fees based on water consumption rather than actual wastewater discharge.

The appellant alleged this violated s. 394(1)(c) of the Municipal Act and constituted unjust enrichment and negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no violation of s. 394(1)(c) and that the municipality's decision was a policy decision immune from civil action under s. 450 of the Municipal Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the municipality imposed a fee based on the use of the service it provided, not in violation of the statutory prohibition.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the successful defendants against the unsuccessful plaintiffs following a trial.

The decision was based on the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, their attempt to re-litigate claims barred by a release, and their rejection of more favourable settlement offers under Rule 49.

The promissory note at the heart of the dispute also stipulated solicitor-client costs for collection.

The court reduced the successful parties' claimed fees to ensure fairness and proportionality, ultimately fixing costs at $172,059.37.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a prior decision.

The defendants, seeking costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, submitted a Bill of Costs lacking dates, descriptions of work, and dockets.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs but required them to submit a proper Bill of Costs in accordance with Form 57A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, supported by dockets.

The plaintiff, who argued the time spent was excessive, was also given the option to submit their own Bill of Costs and dockets.

The parties, brothers and joint owners of a real estate development company, terminated their business relationship via a share purchase agreement.

The plaintiff was to receive 50% of the after-tax profits of a specific subdivision (Forest Creek) as part of the purchase price for his shares.

A dispute arose over the calculation of these profits and other related payments.

The court found that the defendant was not under a fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff and that the contract was not unfair.

The court interpreted the contract to mean the plaintiff was only entitled to profits from the Forest Creek subdivision and not other projects.

The court made specific findings on the calculation of profits, shareholder loan adjustments, and other payments, ultimately finding the defendant owed the plaintiff a significant sum.

This case involved two actions tried together concerning a residential and commercial development.

The "Plaintiffs" (Huntington Properties Ottawa Inc. and Orville Station Ltd.) alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the "Defendants" (Dharma Inc., Akash Sinha, Millerson Group Inc., and The Sinha Family Trust) regarding project finances, development charges, Hydro Ottawa payments, and pre-sold units, seeking to nullify a promissory note.

The "Defendants" (Millerson Group Inc. and The Sinha Family Trust) sought judgment on the promissory note.

The court found that the "Plaintiffs" failed to prove misrepresentation, lack of reliance, or damages.

The court also upheld the validity of releases signed by the "Plaintiffs".

Consequently, the "Plaintiffs'" claim was dismissed, and the "Defendants" were granted judgment on the promissory note for $396,666.00 plus interest.

The plaintiff executive brought a wrongful dismissal action following termination without notice after approximately six years of employment.

The employer initially alleged cause but later conceded none existed.

The court applied the Bardal factors and determined that a reasonable notice period was 13 months but reduced it to 12 months due to limited mitigation efforts.

Damages were calculated using the plaintiff’s most recent accepted salary of $70,000 rather than a prior higher salary.

The court also awarded reimbursement for expenses and RRSP contributions, rejected a limitations defence regarding those expenses, and ordered the defendant to purchase gifted shares from the plaintiff at $160,000.

Following a prior decision staying a motion for summary judgment pending discovery, the court addressed costs of the motion.

The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the motion had been unreasonable and premature, while the moving parties requested partial indemnity costs payable in the cause.

The court considered Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the circumstances surrounding the premature motion.

Although the motion had disrupted the orderly discovery process, the court concluded that much of the work product would remain useful in the continuing litigation.

The court exercised its discretion to award a fixed costs amount rather than substantial indemnity or costs in the cause.

The moving parties sought partial summary judgment to enforce payment obligations under a promissory note issued pursuant to a settlement agreement resolving a joint venture development dispute.

The responding parties argued the note was security for the broader agreement and alleged misrepresentations concerning project budgets, indicating they intended to commence an action in deceit.

The court held that the note could not be considered independently of the settlement agreement and that the allegations raised potential issues requiring a fuller evidentiary record.

Applying the principles in Combined Air regarding premature summary judgment motions, the court found it appropriate to stay the motion to permit the responding parties to commence a deceit action and develop the record.

The stay was granted subject to strict timelines, with partial costs awarded to the moving parties for delay attributable to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as the defendants had failed to produce relevant documents and there were significant credibility issues between the key affiants.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the motion was premature and could not be disposed of without full discovery and the exchange of affidavits of documents.

The motion for summary judgment was stayed pending the completion of these steps.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, as the successful party on the motion, sought full recovery of legal fees exceeding $9,000.

The moving defendants argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be in the cause, emphasizing that the motion was reasonably brought and that a key appellate authority relied upon by the court was released after the motion was argued.

The court found no evidence of unreasonable conduct or bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs and instead awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $5,500 payable forthwith.