Robert J. Smith

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality, alleging it was overcharged for wastewater services because the municipality billed based on the volume of water supplied rather than the lesser volume of wastewater actually discharged.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 394(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not prohibit a municipality from charging for wastewater services based on water supplied, as the municipality actually provided the service and the fee was a reasonable estimate of cost recovery.

The court also held that the municipality's billing method was a policy decision protected by statutory immunity.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including a nurse, her employer, a police detective, and Ontario, for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conversion following her acquittal on a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her spouse.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rules 21 and 25.11.

The court struck the claims against the nurse and her employer, finding they did not directly cause the arrest or initiate the prosecution.

The court also struck the malicious prosecution and conversion claims against the police defendants for failing to plead material facts.

However, the court refused to strike the false arrest and imprisonment claims against the police on limitation grounds, finding it was not plain and obvious that the limitation period began on the date of arrest rather than the date of acquittal.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the successful motions by the defendants, Jim Egalite, Jonathan Collings, and Stephane Langlois, to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions against them.

The court found the defendants' requested partial indemnity costs to be very reasonable, considering their complete success and the absence of a legal basis for the claims.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay specific amounts to each successful defendant.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim against him on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant republished a defamatory email by replying to the original sender and potentially blind copying others.

The court held that replying only to the sender does not constitute publication or republication in defamation law.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to plead material facts supporting the bald allegation that the email was blind copied to third parties.

The motion was granted and the claim against the defendant was struck without leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall in a hotel lobby.

The plaintiff slipped on a wet tile floor that had just been mopped behind him while he was checking in.

The court found that the hotel cleaner and desk clerk failed to verbally warn the plaintiff of the hazard, and the wet floor sign was placed behind him out of his sightline.

The court held that the defendants failed to meet their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and found them liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The defendants, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa and the police, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent and breached their duties by failing to investigate an assault by his ex-wife in 1995.

The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the assault and the police's refusal to lay charges by 2002 at the latest.

Consequently, the limitation period had expired long before the action was commenced in 2016.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it was plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success and was an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sued three lawyers who represented them in a condominium purchase, alleging negligence for failing to rescind the transaction after the plaintiffs discovered water damage upon taking possession.

The defendant lawyers brought motions to strike the claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 21.01(3)(d).

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead any material facts establishing a breach of the standard of care or causation of damages, as a completed real estate transaction cannot be unilaterally rescinded without the vendor's consent.

The court struck the claims against the three lawyers without leave to amend, finding them frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The children's aid society sought an order making a two-year-old child a Crown Ward.

The child was apprehended when the mother, who was fifteen at the time of birth, left her father's home and moved to a shelter.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's lack of parenting skills, failure to attend parenting programs, and the grandfather's interference with medical and childcare advice.

Finding no viable less intrusive options, the court ordered Crown Wardship without access for the mother or grandfather, concluding that access would not be meaningful or beneficial and could impair future adoption opportunities.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful applicants following a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The award was based on the respondents' unreasonable, reprehensible, and bad faith conduct, which involved a conspiracy to circumvent a unanimous shareholders' agreement through a sham default and share seizure.

This conduct, including high-handed actions such as changing locks and involving police, justified the higher scale of costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,000, to be shared jointly and severally by the respondent shareholders and secured creditors.

The plaintiffs (taxicab drivers and their union) sought an interlocutory injunction against Uber drivers to enforce a City by-law, which was denied.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that unsuccessful injunction motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,000 plus HST and disbursements to the successful Uber drivers, payable forthwith, considering the complexity and importance of the matter, the intense work required to respond to an injunction, and the applicants' sophistication.

The applicant mother brought a motion to relocate with her three-year-old daughter from Ottawa to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The mother sought to move for new employment, to marry her boyfriend, and to access her family support network, as she had no family support in Ottawa.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it was not in the child's best interests and would reduce his contact.

The court applied the two-stage test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, finding a material change in circumstances.

Considering the mother's role as the child's primary caregiver, the father's history of frequently cancelled access visits due to work commitments, the mother's legitimate reasons for moving, and the minimal disruption to the child due to her young age (not yet in kindergarten), the court granted the mother's motion to relocate.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants sought orders regarding the exhumation of ashes, appointment as estate trustee, and reimbursement of funeral expenses, while also seeking inspection of a hockey card collection.

The respondent successfully opposed the exhumation and estate trustee appointment but was ordered to repay funeral expenses and allow inspection/division of hockey cards.

The court considered Rule 57 factors, including divided success and an offer to settle made by the respondent that exceeded the outcome.

The applicants were ordered to pay costs to the respondent, which were to be offset against the funeral expense reimbursement.

Maxrelco Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs for successfully opposing a summary judgment motion brought by Lumipro Inc. and for its own cross-motion to amend the plaintiff's name to correct a misnomer.

Lumipro Inc. argued the costs claimed were excessive, that its summary judgment motion was reasonably brought, and that no costs should be awarded for the misnomer amendment.

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that substantial indemnity was not warranted because the summary judgment motion raised an arguable issue and the need for the misnomer amendment was due to the plaintiff's initial error.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis for the summary judgment motion, ordering Lumipro Inc. to pay Maxrelco Inc. $12,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reverse actions taken by the respondents and a secured creditor, including the seizure of shares, removal of directors, and termination of employment, alleging an invalid notice of default and oppression.

The court granted the injunction, finding the applicants established a prima facie case that the default notice was invalid, the shareholders' resolutions were null and void, and that the respondents conspired with the secured creditor to circumvent a unanimous shareholder agreement.

The court also found irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo, reinstating the applicants to their positions and setting aside the impugned acts.

The accused, Floyd Herbert, was found guilty of eight counts including sexual assault, assault, threatening bodily harm, uttering a threat to kill an animal, forcible entry, and three counts of failing to abide by conditions of recognizance.

The offences involved a violent sexual assault and forcible entry into the 62-year-old complainant's apartment.

The court considered the accused's extensive criminal record, cocaine addiction, and mitigating factors such as remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Applying principles of specific and general deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, the court sentenced the accused to a total of five years in prison, with credit for two years of pre-trial custody, leaving three years to serve.

Additional orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

Mark Catto died intestate.

His mother, Nan Catto, and brother, Chuck Catto, brought an application seeking orders to exhume Mark's ashes for reburial, appoint Nan as Estate Trustee, compel the Estate to repay funeral expenses paid by Nan, and allow Chuck to inspect a hockey card collection.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

It appointed Mark's wife, Donna McKay, as Estate Trustee, granting her the right to decide on the burial of the ashes, thus denying the exhumation request.

The court ordered the Estate to repay Nan for funeral expenses, finding she did not intend them as a gift.

Chuck Catto was granted the right to inspect the hockey card collection.

The defendant Lumipro Inc. sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff Maxrelco Inc. lacked standing as it was a shareholder, not the property owner, and that Lumipro was only hired for repairs, not maintenance.

Maxrelco Inc. brought a cross-motion to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, changing the plaintiff to Maxrelco (Immeubles) Inc., the actual property owner.

The court granted Maxrelco's cross-motion, finding it was a misnomer and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

Consequently, the court dismissed Lumipro's summary judgment motion, determining there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the cause of the fire and Lumipro's alleged negligence in sign repair and maintenance.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal suspending its liquor licence for 55 days after a patron was overserved, became intoxicated, and was subsequently struck and killed by a vehicle.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal reasonably concluded the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The court held that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests, properly weighed the evidence, and imposed a reasonable penalty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to deny his organization a special event permit to host a Canada Day event in a public park.

The City had denied the permit due to a history of serious health, safety, and by-law infractions at the applicant's previous events.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no violation of the applicant's Charter right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as the City's regulation of park use was reasonable.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for the child ZS via summary judgment.

The mother opposed, arguing for another chance to parent.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the parents' history of missed visits, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the child's significant medical needs, especially after an unsuccessful reintegration attempt.

Given the child had been in care for 18 months, exceeding statutory timelines, the court determined it was in the child's best interest to be made a Crown ward for adoption, dismissing the mother's arguments as unsubstantiated denials.