Samantha Montreuil

The City of Ottawa, acting as Service Manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011, sought an order to enforce its appointment of an interim board of directors for Coopérative d’habitation Voisins Inc. and to compel the former directors (Respondents) to surrender Co-op property and records.

The Co-op was in a state of governance paralysis with competing boards and a frozen bank account, leading to an inability to pay its debts.

The court found that the City's intervention was justified under the Act's provisions for immediate action when a housing provider is unable to meet its financial obligations, despite the Respondents' arguments regarding insufficient notice and alleged bias.

The court declared the City-appointed board legally constituted and issued a mandatory order for the Respondents to cooperate.

The applicant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to maintain his rent-geared-to-income subsidy pending the hearing of his application for judicial review.

The respondent municipality had terminated the subsidy because the applicant failed to report changes in his income.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his fears of eviction were speculative and financial losses could be compensated.

The balance of convenience favoured the municipality, which had a long waiting list for subsidized housing.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to maintain his rent-geared-to-income housing subsidy pending the outcome of his application for judicial review.

The respondent municipality had terminated the subsidy because the applicant failed to report changes to his income within the required 30-day period.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his fears of eviction were speculative and any financial loss could be compensated in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the municipality, which had a long waiting list for social housing.

The motion was dismissed.

GSI Environnement Inc. sued the City of Ottawa for unpaid invoices related to a biosolids disposal contract.

The City counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging GSI wrongfully repudiated the agreement.

GSI argued the City breached the contract first by supplying non-conforming biosolids due to Quebec regulatory changes.

The court found that a 2007 amendment to the contract addressed the non-conforming biosolids issue by adjusting the pricing structure, and alternatively, any breach by the City was not fundamental.

Although the City's counterclaim was statute-barred, the court allowed an equitable set-off, effectively denying GSI's claim.

The City was awarded judgment against EnGlobe Corp. for unpaid disposal costs.

GSI Environnement Inc. sued the City of Ottawa for unpaid invoices related to a biosolids disposal contract.

The City counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging GSI wrongfully repudiated the agreement.

GSI argued the City breached the contract first by supplying non-conforming biosolids due to Quebec regulatory changes.

The court found that a 2007 amendment to the contract addressed the non-conforming biosolids issue by adjusting the pricing structure, and alternatively, any breach by the City was not fundamental.

Although the City's counterclaim was statute-barred, the court allowed an equitable set-off, effectively denying GSI's claim.

The City was awarded judgment against EnGlobe Corp. for unpaid disposal costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing an action as abandoned under Rule 76.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the contextual test including the factors identified in Reid v. Dow Corning Corp to determine whether the dismissal should be set aside.

The moving party failed to provide adequate evidence explaining significant delays in bringing the motion and did not sufficiently address potential prejudice to the defendant, particularly given the age of the underlying incident and the procedural history of the matter.

The court found that the explanations provided, including issues relating to counsel’s suspension and communication difficulties, were insufficient.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.