Peter Entecott

The appellant, Terry LeBlanc, was the high bidder at a Sheriff's auction for a residential property.

His winning bid of $260,000 was less than 60% of the lowest appraised value ($320,000), leading to the sale's cancellation based on an internal Attorney General policy.

LeBlanc sued the Crown for breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the contract permitted unilateral cancellation, section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act shielded the respondent, and equitable principles allowed declining enforcement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the auction terms, as announced and posted at the courthouse, allowed for unilateral cancellation up to the time of satisfaction of sale terms, making it unnecessary to address the other grounds.

The appellant mother, M.H., brought a motion for state-funded counsel for her appeal of a child protection order that placed her child in extended care.

The court applied the five-part test for funding, finding that the mother's s. 7 Charter rights were engaged, she could not have a fair hearing without counsel due to the complexity of the proceedings and her limited capacity, she had exhausted all legal aid avenues, and she was unable to afford a lawyer.

Crucially, the court determined that her appeal had the requisite minimum threshold of merit, particularly concerning arguments of ineffective assistance of counsel and the significant imbalance of evidence at the original summary judgment motion.

The motion was granted, and the Attorney General of Ontario was ordered to provide state-funded counsel and reasonable disbursements for both the appeal and the present motion.

The moving defendants sought to strike a claim against the Crown and obtain summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice action against a physician arising from the prescription of Aldara and alleged resulting injuries.

The court proceeded in the self-represented plaintiff's absence after repeated adjournments and non-compliance with peremptory terms.

The claim against the Crown was struck as a nullity because the plaintiff sued a ministry lacking capacity to be sued and failed to provide the mandatory sixty days' notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Summary judgment was granted to the physician because uncontradicted expert evidence established compliance with the standard of care, and the action was independently barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

No costs were awarded because the successful defendants did not seek costs.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion under Rule 30.10 seeking production of a Crown Brief from the non-party Attorney General of Ontario.

The Attorney General objected on the basis that the motion was premature, as statements of defence had not yet been filed.

The court agreed, holding that relevance cannot be established in a vacuum before pleadings are closed.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew it once pleadings are closed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct an asphalt parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

Following a telephone conference call, the Hearing Officer issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates for the appeal.