Sarah Naughton

The plaintiff brought an action in nuisance, negligence, and strict liability against his neighbour after water from the neighbour's sump pump and failing septic system flooded his property.

The continuous flooding undermined the foundation of the plaintiff's home, causing it to structurally collapse and rendering it unsafe to inhabit.

The court found the defendant liable under the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, as well as in negligence and nuisance, for failing to properly manage his water discharge and maintain his property.

The plaintiff was awarded $505,354.53 in damages to cover the replacement cost of his home and out-of-pocket expenses, plus $100,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, a federal penitentiary warden, commenced a civil action against a subordinate employee for defamation and harassment.

The defendant moved to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under section 236 of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act because the matter was a workplace dispute subject to the statutory grievance process.

The motion judge allowed the action to proceed against the individual defendant and added the Attorney General as a party.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the broad scope of the grievance process ousted the court's jurisdiction over both the Crown and the individual employee.

The appeal was granted and the action dismissed.

The applicants and respondents own neighbouring properties subdivided from a single parcel.

The respondents hold an easement over a strip of the applicants' land for pedestrian access to 'use and enjoy the shores of Lake Ontario'.

The applicants sought a declaration limiting the respondents' use to mere ingress and egress to the water.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the surrounding circumstances at the time the easement was created, including the zoning of the strip as an open space private park, indicated an intention to allow recreational use such as sitting and enjoying the view, rather than just passing through.

The applicant sought a declaration that the purported last will and testament of his late father was invalid.

The deceased had suffered a severe stroke resulting in left-sided paralysis and cognitive impairment shortly before the will was allegedly executed.

Relying on expert medical evidence and hospital records, the court found it was physically impossible for the deceased to have signed the will as alleged by the respondent.

The application was allowed and the will was declared invalid.