Peter Reinitzer

The respondents purchased a property in 2021 and discovered significant foundation defects in a dwelling constructed between 1986 and 1987.

They sued the appellant municipality in 2022 for negligent supervision of the construction.

The motion judge dismissed the municipality's summary judgment motion, finding that the municipality had an ongoing duty to monitor the open building permit, which constituted a continuous omission tolling the 15-year ultimate limitation period under s. 15(6)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a continuous act or omission requires successive or repetitive actionable conduct, which was absent here.

The claim was therefore statute-barred by the ultimate limitation period.

The Court also noted the motion judge erred in recognizing a novel duty to monitor without conducting an Anns/Cooper analysis.

The appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, commenced an action against his former landlord for the disposal of business assets and related mental distress.

The motion judge dismissed the action as a nullity, finding that only the trustee in bankruptcy had the capacity to sue.

On appeal, the appellant argued the assets were exempt 'tools of the trade' under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the exemption limit was only $11,300, the claim sought damages rather than the return of property, and the mental distress claim was inextricably linked to the property claim belonging to the bankrupt estate.

The respondents purchased a motel and gas station from the appellants.

The trial judge found the appellants fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the underground fuel tank system and breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by failing to provide a required safety compliance report.

The trial judge awarded damages based on the cost to replace the tank system.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred by not granting an adjournment due to late disclosure of a Pierringer agreement, misapprehending evidence about compliance alternatives, and using the wrong measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants never requested an adjournment or stay at trial, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of damages or contractual interpretation.

The plaintiffs purchased a motel and gas station from the defendants.

Prior to the sale, the defendants represented that the fuel tank system was in good condition and only required routine testing, concealing outstanding TSSA orders and a history of non-compliance.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included a clause requiring the defendants to provide a report confirming the system was safe and compliant, which they failed to do.

The plaintiffs subsequently discovered the system was non-compliant and faced closure by the TSSA, forcing them to incur significant costs to install a new system.

The court found the defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court also found the plaintiffs' real estate lawyer negligent for failing to adequately protect them in the transaction.

Liability for the $635,189.12 in damages was apportioned 80% to the defendants and 20% to the lawyer.

The plaintiffs purchased a cottage and later discovered significant structural issues and Building Code violations during renovations.

They sued the Township for negligent building inspections and failure to enforce the Building Code Act.

The court found that the Township owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs and breached that duty by granting a building permit without proper plans and failing to identify structural deficiencies during inspections.

The Township was held liable for the costs to remedy the Code violations and for the plaintiffs' mental distress, resulting in a total damages award of $361,875.33.

The plaintiff, an 18-year-old soccer player, suffered an electric shock from stray voltage leaking from a light pole at a municipally-owned sports field.

The shock was caused by internal damage to the pole's wiring resulting from a recent lightning strike.

The plaintiff sued the municipality under the Occupiers' Liability Act, claiming physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the specific nature of the electrical failure was highly unusual and not reasonably foreseeable.

The court concluded that the municipality had met its standard of care by adhering to regular inspection and maintenance protocols, and was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

Following a trial where both the plaintiffs' construction claim and the defendants' counterclaims were dismissed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed $100,000 for deficiencies and breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed for mental distress and injurious falsehood.

Despite divided success, the court found the plaintiffs should not have pursued their claim and that the defendants were entitled to costs for defending the main action.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the defendants $70,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiffs hired the defendant contractor to build a dwelling on their property.

The contractor ceased work when the dwelling was 50% complete, citing the plaintiff's constant interference and abusive behaviour.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence, arguing the contract was unenforceable because the contractor was not a registered Tarion builder.

The contractor counterclaimed for breach of contract and injurious falsehood based on internet posts and a complaint to Tarion.

The court found that the plaintiff breached the contract by interfering with construction methods.

However, the court dismissed all claims and counterclaims, finding no damages were proven by either party and that the Tarion complaint was protected by absolute privilege.