Philip J. Kennedy

The self-represented applicant's motion under the Provincial Offences Act was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicant's conduct was vexatious and caused unnecessary delay.

The applicant argued that under s. 142(5) of the Provincial Offences Act, no costs should be awarded.

The court held that it retains broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to award costs to discourage frivolous and meritless litigation.

The court awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $4,500 for the municipality and $10,000 for the conservation authority.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking certiorari, mandamus, and Charter relief to overturn a Justice of the Peace's interlocutory decision refusing to dismiss charges under the Conservation Authorities Act and the Building Code Act.

The applicant argued the charges for building an unauthorized deck were statute-barred and constituted double jeopardy because he was previously acquitted of charges relating to a solar panel array on the same property.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding the deck construction was a separate incident, the Green Energy Act did not provide an exemption, and there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify prerogative relief mid-proceeding.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the action or temporarily suspend a prior production order pending a summary judgment motion.

The defendant argued that compliance with the order would require disclosure of competitively sensitive information regarding its digital printing business to the plaintiff.

The court applied the two‑part test for a stay of proceedings, requiring proof that continuation of the proceeding would cause injustice to the defendant and that a stay would not cause injustice to the plaintiff.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish either branch of the test, noting the earlier production order had not been appealed and that the information could likely be obtained through cross‑examination on the summary judgment record.

The motion to stay the proceedings or suspend the production order was dismissed.