Ronald F. Caza

The respondent, an Ontario police constable, travelled to New York City after September 11, 2001, to assist with search and rescue efforts.

The appellant newspaper published articles alleging he misrepresented himself to authorities and interfered with rescue operations.

The respondent sued for defamation.

At trial, the appellants pleaded qualified privilege but not the English defence of responsible journalism.

The jury found for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal recognized a new responsible journalism defence but denied the appellants its protection because they had not pleaded it at trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the appellants should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the newly recognized defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

The appellants filed a complaint alleging that Industry Canada failed to provide community economic development services in French of equal quality to those provided in English in the Huronia region.

The Commissioner of Official Languages found a breach of the Official Languages Act.

By the time the appellants applied for a court remedy under s. 77 of the Act, Industry Canada had taken corrective measures.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that while there was an initial breach, no remedy other than costs was appropriate because the remaining deficiencies related to program content rather than linguistic access, which fell outside Part IV of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the remaining issues were beyond the scope of Part IV, though it clarified that substantive equality may sometimes require services with distinct content depending on the nature of the program.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from a decision denying leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion to quash, holding that there is no right of appeal from a decision denying leave to appeal an interlocutory decision.

Costs were awarded to the moving party in the amount of $4,000.

The plaintiff, an OPP officer, sued the defendant newspaper and its reporters for defamation over articles criticizing his conduct during the 9/11 rescue efforts in New York.

At trial, the defendants relied on the traditional defence of qualified privilege, which the trial judge rejected for two of the articles.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in damages.

On appeal, the defendants argued for the adoption of the public interest responsible journalism defence.

The Court of Appeal recognized the new defence as part of Ontario law, holding that it strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

However, the court dismissed the appeal because the defendants had not pleaded or litigated the responsible journalism standard at trial.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their claim for fee simple title to a disputed property based on adverse possession.

The appellants had occupied the land and built a cottage under a 40-year written agreement with the respondent's father, paying an annual fee and property taxes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellants' occupation was by permission, not adverse, open, and notorious possession with the intent to exclude the owner.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a teacher, was convicted of sexually touching a teenage student.

He appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to cross-examine the complainant on notes taken by a police officer, which he claimed constituted a prior inconsistent statement.

He also argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police notes did not constitute a formal statement, the failure to cross-examine did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge's reasons were adequate.

The appellants, a tree harvesting company and its principal, sued the respondent pulp and paper company for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract after suffering financial ruin following the mechanization of their operations.

A jury found in favour of the appellants, awarding substantial damages.

However, the trial judge subsequently granted the respondent's reserved motion for non-suit on the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in granting the non-suit by weighing the evidence rather than determining if a prima facie case existed.

The Court reinstated the jury's verdict and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, holding that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence.

The appellants, tree harvesters, sued the respondent forestry company for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, alleging they relied on the respondent's assurances when incurring significant debt to mechanize their operations.

A jury found in favour of the appellants and awarded damages.

However, the trial judge subsequently granted the respondent's reserved motion for non-suit, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by weighing the evidence rather than assessing if a prima facie case existed.

The Court set aside the non-suit, dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal challenging the jury verdict, and restored the jury's damages award.

The court issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an application.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within one month.

The court applied the principle that costs should follow the event and relied on the Boucher framework to ensure the award was fair, reasonable, and within the parties' reasonable expectations.

The applicant, a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court, sought judicial review of the senior regional judge's decision not to renew his appointment upon his turning 75 years old.

The applicant argued that age was an irrelevant factor since the Courts of Justice Act does not prescribe a mandatory retirement age for deputy judges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the senior regional judge was entitled to consider age and the need to provide experience to younger judges as relevant factors in her administrative discretion.

The applicants sought to quash the Minister's decision to close the Land Registry Office in Welland, a designated area under the French Language Services Act, and relocate its services to St. Catharines.

They argued the decision violated the Act and the constitutional principle of respect for and protection of minorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Act requires the provision of services to a designated area but does not prohibit relocating the office outside the area, provided the services remain available.

The court also dismissed as premature a related application by a seniors' residence seeking to administer its own waiting list for subsidized housing to preserve its francophone character.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action as an abuse of process.

The motions judge had concluded that commencing a new action against individual defendants after the court refused to amend the claim to name them in a prior action constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error in principle, as the prior decision was purely procedural and did not deal with the merits of the claim.

The appeal was allowed and the action was permitted to proceed.

The respondents moved to stay the appellant's action and for an order for security for costs on the appeal, citing the appellant's failure to pay over $27,000 in costs awards from previous unsuccessful proceedings.

The appellant, who was suing for historical sexual and physical abuse, was impecunious and relied on a disability pension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that despite the unpaid costs and the respondents' valid concerns, the impecunious appellant should not be deprived of a final opportunity to have his case considered on the merits, as the appeal was not plainly devoid of merit.

The City of Ottawa appealed a decision dismissing its appeal of the Chief Building Official's issuance of a building permit for a proposed intensive hog farm operation.

The Intervenor cross-appealed the application judge's finding that it did not have a legal non-conforming use to operate the hog farm.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The Court held that the environmental statutes (OWRA, Fisheries Act, EPA) were not 'other applicable law' under s. 8(2) of the Building Code Act because they lacked a real and logical nexus to the construction and demolition of buildings.

Furthermore, the Court upheld the application judge's finding that the proposed hog farm was a change in use from the pre-existing dairy farm, meaning the Intervenor did not have a legal non-conforming use right under the Planning Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Town Council resolution that required a property owner's consent as a pre-condition to any heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicants, a group of parishioners, had requested the designation of a local church to prevent its demolition by the Diocese.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Town's resolution was patently unreasonable.

By imposing a condition not found in the Act, the Town fettered its own discretion and aborted the statutory decision-making process.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal council's decision refusing to designate a historic francophone church under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The council had passed a resolution requiring the property owner's consent before considering any heritage designation.

The Divisional Court held that imposing such a condition was manifestly unreasonable and contrary to the purpose of the Act, which contemplates balancing public and private interests and does not make owner consent a prerequisite.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the council for reconsideration.

The appellants, members of a dairy cooperative, appealed a decision declaring that the cooperative was not required to include milk sold via export contracts when calculating patronage returns under s. 55(5) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal applied a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, finding that the term 'deliver' in s. 55(5) requires a transfer of title.

Because export contracts allow producers to direct milk to entities other than the cooperative without transferring title to the marketing board, the statutory presumption of a direct business link does not apply.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of the main judgment, the court received written submissions on costs.

The appellant achieved substantial success on the appeal and was entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced the appellant's bill of costs by $15,000 for widening the scope of the appeal with unsuccessful compensatory damages issues, by $15,000 for excessive factum preparation time, and by $4,364 for excessive counsel fees.

Costs were fixed at $56,770.77 on a partial indemnity scale.

The respondent's dairy barn and livestock were destroyed in a fire.

The appellant insurer paid over $1.17 million under the policy but disputed other aspects of the claim, including loss of livestock, loss of earnings, and damage to silos.

At trial, the jury awarded the respondent an additional $488,389 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages for the insurer's breach of its duty of good faith.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages award.

The Court held that while the insurer breached its duty to act fairly and in good faith by failing to promptly pay amounts it reasonably believed were owing, its conduct was not so outrageous or extreme as to warrant punishment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for payment for installing a subsurface drainage system and awarding damages on the respondent's counterclaim for crop losses due to improper drainage.

The trial judge found the system inadequate due to soil conditions, the filter used, and installation in wet conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The Court also upheld the damages award, noting the limitation of liability clause was not incorporated into the agreement or pleaded.