Roberto David Aburto

The applicant, Charles Frederick Armstrong, challenged the constitutionality of the Township of Russell’s Sign By-Law, which restricted the display of municipal election signs.

The court found that the by-law violated Armstrong’s freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the violation was not justified under section 1.

The court also found that the Township was unjustly enriched by requiring Armstrong to pay $450 for the return of his signs, which had been removed under the unconstitutional by-law.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by The Corporation of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL).

The responding parties, Tweed Farms Inc. and 2470689 Ontario Inc., sought costs.

Tweed Farms claimed increased costs due to NOTL's abandoned positions, the expedited nature of the motion, and challenges related to virtual hearings during COVID-19.

NOTL argued the claimed amounts were excessive.

The court applied principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, adjusting counsel rates and acknowledging the impact of NOTL's litigation conduct.

The court awarded Tweed Farms Inc. $25,875 and 2470689 Ontario Inc. $5,940, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to provide further affidavit of documents and permit additional examinations for discovery, eight years after the action commenced and after it was set down for trial.

The defendant opposed, arguing the plaintiff required leave and that the request was untimely and disproportional.

The court found that a pre-trial endorsement by Justice Doyle constituted leave.

It determined the requested documents, concerning other clients using the same IP address and related performance issues, were relevant to the plaintiff's negligence claim.

Despite the significant delay and potential for trial adjournment, the court ordered disclosure, with the plaintiff bearing the initial costs of retrieval, to mitigate proportionality concerns.

Costs for the motion were not awarded to the successful plaintiff due to the delay and non-compliance with case management orders.

The Corporation of Loyalist Township sought to enforce an option to purchase two historic properties (Layer Cake Hall and Old Town Hall) from The Fairfield-Gutzeit Society for a nominal sum of two dollars each.

The Society, which received the properties from the former Village of Bath (predecessor to Loyalist Township) for preservation, had listed them for sale to the general public.

The Township argued this triggered its contractual option to repurchase.

The Society counter-applied, challenging the covenant's validity and enforceability, and seeking vacant possession due to the Township's alleged lease breaches.

The court found the Township's option to purchase was a valid contractual right, not an interest in land or a restrictive covenant, and was triggered by the Society's public listing of the properties.

The court granted specific performance to the Township, entitling it to purchase the properties.

The Township was also found to be in breach of its lease obligations by overholding, but this was deemed of limited consequence given the option to purchase outcome.

Neighbouring homeowners disputed rights over a 14-foot strip of land between their properties containing two abutting driveways.

The respondents claimed a prescriptive easement based on historical use by predecessors in title.

The application judge found the easement had been acquired through the doctrine of lost modern grant and ordered the appellants to remove a fence erected on their property.

The appellants appealed, arguing the requirements for a prescriptive easement had not been met.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the evidence did not establish use "as of right" and that the easement was not reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the dominant property.

A utility company and rural municipality disputed cost-sharing for gas pipeline relocation necessitated by municipal drainage works.

The utility sought 35% cost contribution from the municipality under a franchise agreement, while the municipality argued the utility should bear the full cost under section 26 of the Drainage Act.

The application judge held that section 26 of the Act overrode the franchise agreement's cost-sharing provisions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act does not prohibit contracting out of its cost-allocation provisions and that the franchise agreement's cost-sharing mechanism applies to drainage works undertaken by the municipality.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the successful defendants against the unsuccessful plaintiffs following a trial.

The decision was based on the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, their attempt to re-litigate claims barred by a release, and their rejection of more favourable settlement offers under Rule 49.

The promissory note at the heart of the dispute also stipulated solicitor-client costs for collection.

The court reduced the successful parties' claimed fees to ensure fairness and proportionality, ultimately fixing costs at $172,059.37.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a prior decision.

The defendants, seeking costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, submitted a Bill of Costs lacking dates, descriptions of work, and dockets.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs but required them to submit a proper Bill of Costs in accordance with Form 57A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, supported by dockets.

The plaintiff, who argued the time spent was excessive, was also given the option to submit their own Bill of Costs and dockets.

This case involved two actions tried together concerning a residential and commercial development.

The "Plaintiffs" (Huntington Properties Ottawa Inc. and Orville Station Ltd.) alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the "Defendants" (Dharma Inc., Akash Sinha, Millerson Group Inc., and The Sinha Family Trust) regarding project finances, development charges, Hydro Ottawa payments, and pre-sold units, seeking to nullify a promissory note.

The "Defendants" (Millerson Group Inc. and The Sinha Family Trust) sought judgment on the promissory note.

The court found that the "Plaintiffs" failed to prove misrepresentation, lack of reliance, or damages.

The court also upheld the validity of releases signed by the "Plaintiffs".

Consequently, the "Plaintiffs'" claim was dismissed, and the "Defendants" were granted judgment on the promissory note for $396,666.00 plus interest.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a finding that one of the plaintiffs was in contempt of court for breaching an earlier court order requiring all communications with defence counsel to be in writing and prohibiting telephone or voicemail messages.

Despite the order, the plaintiff left numerous abusive voicemail messages for defence counsel over several days.

The court applied the established three‑part test for civil contempt and found the order was clear, the breach was deliberate and wilful, and the evidence proved contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the contemnor admitted the conduct and apologized, the repeated nature of the breaches and the defiant tone of the messages aggravated the misconduct.

The court imposed a monetary sanction rather than imprisonment but warned that future breaches could attract more severe penalties.

The defendant bank brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged fraud, deceit, emotional distress, and sought substantial punitive damages arising from NSF charges and monthly account fees imposed by the bank.

The court held that the pleading contained no material facts capable of supporting claims of fraud or intentional infliction of mental suffering and consisted largely of unsupported conclusions and allegations.

Applying the principles governing scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious pleadings, the court found it plain and obvious the action had no merit.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.

During a scheduled motion hearing, the plaintiffs sought an adjournment and additional procedural orders, including the examination of corporate legal counsel whose affidavit was attached to another affiant’s evidence and permission to communicate verbally with a former lawyer involved in the matter.

The defendants did not oppose the adjournment but objected to the additional requests.

The court adjourned the motion and imposed a timetable for cross-examinations and filings during the adjournment period.

The court declined to order the requested examination of the corporate counsel, finding the examination of the primary affiant sufficient.

Due to concerns about prior abusive voicemail communications, the court ordered that all communications with specified individuals occur only in writing.

The defendants pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to building a deck and hot tub without obtaining a building permit, in violation of the Building Code Act and City of Waterloo by-laws.

They failed to comply with orders to obtain a permit, remove the structures, and cease occupancy.

The court imposed a balanced sentencing package including a suspended sentence with one-year probation on the first count and fines of $500 on each of three counts for failure to comply with orders.

One count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.