Richard Oliver

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought motions to extend the set down deadline in a 2012 construction deficiency action and to have a related 2017 solicitor's negligence action tried together with it.

The defendants in the construction action cross-moved to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the extension peremptorily to December 31, 2023, finding the delay adequately explained and no actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together and instead stayed the solicitor's negligence action, finding the construction action significantly more complex and that a stay would prevent unnecessary duplication of resources.

The defendants, Toronto Hydro and the City of Toronto, sought leave to issue third-party claims against the plaintiffs (a building owner and two tenants) and various former owners and property managers for contribution and indemnity following a fire in a hydro vault.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that covenants to insure in their leases shielded them from liability to each other, rendering the third-party claims legally untenable under the Supreme Court's decisions in T. Eaton Co. and Giffels.

The court granted leave in part, allowing claims against parties in capacities not shielded by the insurance covenants (e.g., former owners, property managers), but dismissed the motions regarding claims against the landlord and tenant in their capacities governed by the leases.

The court also rejected the argument that covenants to insure should be treated as exclusion clauses subject to public policy exceptions.

The appellant, acquitted of all charges after a jury trial, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his civil claim against the Toronto Police Services Board and police officers for negligent investigation and perjury.

The motion judge found several claims statute-barred and determined the appellant adduced no evidence capable of supporting the remaining claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that while acquittal is a necessary condition for a negligent investigation claim, it is not sufficient; there must also be evidence of a breach of the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The appellant failed to adduce such evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by Toronto City Council denying variances to the City's sign by-law for an electronic billboard.

The applicant argued that the City Council and the Community Council breached procedural fairness and that the local councillor's participation raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court held that while the decision was administrative and attracted a duty of fairness, the duty was at the lower end of the spectrum.

The court found that the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness and that the local councillor's actions did not constitute a disqualifying bias given his representative role.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing his civil action as abandoned and sought extensions to validate or extend service of the statement of claim and amend the claim.

The underlying action alleged negligent investigation and malicious prosecution arising from a traffic stop and drug-related charges that were later stayed.

The court applied the contextual factors governing reinstatement of actions dismissed for delay, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay insufficiently explained, the evidence regarding counsel’s health issues unsubstantiated, and the motion not brought promptly after dismissal.

Presumed and potential actual prejudice to the defendants was not rebutted.

The court declined to set aside the dismissal order.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate that upheld an Inspection Order requiring the removal of excessive combustible materials from her residential unit.

The appellant argued that the 30-day compliance period was unfair given her health problems.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the excessive combustible materials created a severe fire safety hazard and that the appellant had been given ample time to comply.

The Commission upheld the order with specific directions for clearing combustibles and providing access to exits, setting a new compliance date.

The police defendants moved to strike a statement of claim brought by a self‑represented plaintiff following his conviction for assault.

The plaintiff alleged police negligence, wrongful detention, Charter violations, and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest and investigation.

The court held that the claim was an attempt to relitigate issues determined in the criminal proceedings, where the plaintiff had been convicted and his appeal dismissed.

Because a conviction establishes that the charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the plaintiff could not establish essential elements of malicious prosecution or lack of reasonable grounds.

The court concluded the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.

The applicants, comprising the First Leaside group of companies, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to conduct an orderly wind-down of their operations.

The court found that the applicants, viewed as a group, were insolvent and that the CCAA could be appropriately used for a liquidating proceeding.

The court also granted super-priority Administration and D&O Charges, dismissing arguments from secured creditors that provincial paramountcy issues precluded such priorities without further notice.

The appellant brought an appeal under the Construction Lien Act from a Master's reasons before the report was confirmed.

The court previously found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the proper procedure was a motion to oppose confirmation under Rule 54.09.

In this endorsement on costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents for the jurisdictional issue, noting the appeal was unnecessary as the Master had advised the parties of the proper forum.

The court fixed costs at $2,500 for the first respondent and $1,500 for the second respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's decisions interpreting Minutes of Settlement in a construction lien action regarding roof repairs.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 71(1) of the Construction Lien Act because the Master's report had not yet been confirmed.

In the alternative, reviewing the merits, the court found the Master correctly interpreted the settlement agreement's definition of 'Work' and made no palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The appeal was dismissed.