Scott G. Lemke

The defendant, Hydro One Networks Inc., moved for a temporary stay of an action brought by Nyon Oil Inc. and 1170367 Ontario Inc. regarding land ownership and rights to operate electricity transmission infrastructure.

The court considered the overlap and differences between the Superior Court action and a parallel Ontario Energy Board proceeding, ultimately granting a one-year stay to allow the Board to determine expropriation and related issues first.

The court found that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the ongoing operation of the transmission system and that a stay would avoid inconsistent findings and protect the public interest.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted an application for a recount of votes in the electoral district of Mississauga–Erin Mills following Ontario’s 44th General Election held on February 27, 2025.

The applicants, including the Chief Electoral Officer and Returning Officer, sought the recount pursuant to sections 67, 69, and 71 of the Election Act due to the narrow margin of 20 votes between the two leading candidates, Sheref Sabawy and Qasir Dar.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of ordering recounts even when the statutory threshold for a recount is met, balancing finality, reviewability, and public confidence in electoral outcomes.

The recount was ordered to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the democratic process despite no specific evidence of error.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Andrea Grebenc’s application for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Burlington, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case that a recount would change the election outcome.

The court emphasized the strict statutory timelines under section 71(1) of the Elections Act requiring recount applications to be brought and heard within four days of official tabulation.

Despite credible evidence from a scrutineer regarding improperly rejected ballots, the net difference in votes was only one, insufficient to justify a recount.

The decision underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing public confidence in election finality with the need for accuracy.

This case involved a shareholder dispute where OneMove Capital Corporation sought to affirm the validity of its proposal under s. 99 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) to remove and replace a director, and to compel Dye & Durham Limited to include this proposal in its information circular.

Dye & Durham brought a counter-application to omit the proposal and sought a declaration that OneMove and Tyler Proud breached a 2020 Investor Rights Agreement (IRA).

The court ruled that a shareholder cannot use the s. 99 proposal mechanism to remove a director, as director removal requires a special meeting requisitioned under s. 105 of the OBCA.

However, the court also found that OneMove's proposal, if permissible, would not fall under the "personal grievance" exception of s. 99(5)(b) or (b.1), as it related significantly to the company's business affairs.

Furthermore, the court determined that the IRA did not prohibit OneMove from seeking to remove its nominee director through proper OBCA channels, and dismissed Dye & Durham's other alleged breaches of the IRA as theoretical.

The appellant, a condominium unit holder, appealed the dismissal of his application against the condominium corporation regarding noise complaints from an adjacent unit.

The original application sought relief under the Condominium Act, primarily an oppression remedy (s. 135), and damages.

The application judge found the corporation's response to the complaints reasonable and dismissed the application, noting that the unit owner causing the noise was not a party, precluding certain remedies.

On appeal, the appellant's new counsel attempted to re-frame the argument to focus on a compliance order under s. 134 (nuisance).

The Court of Appeal refused to entertain this new argument, emphasizing that it was not properly raised below and would require fact-finding.

The Court affirmed the application judge's finding that the corporation's conduct was not oppressive, as it had taken reasonable steps to address the complaints, and that the requested remedy of unit renovation could not be ordered without the affected unit owner being a party.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice that dismissed her appeal from a conviction for operating a rental unit without a valid licence.

The applicant contended that she had entered an uninformed guilty plea at trial, arguing this raised a question of law essential to the public interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's complaint was fact-based rather than a question of law, and that she had failed to meet the very high threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 131 of the POA.

The applicant, a Liberal candidate in the 2014 Ontario provincial election for the electoral district of Thornhill, sought a recount of ballots pursuant to Section 71 of the Election Act.

On election night, unofficial results showed the applicant winning by 85 votes.

However, the official tabulation conducted the following day showed the respondent, a Progressive Conservative candidate, winning by the same 85-vote margin.

The applicant alleged improper rejection of ballots and improper tabulation by the returning officer.

The court ordered a recount, finding that the discrepancy between the unofficial and official tallies, combined with the extremely narrow margin of victory and concerns about voter confidence in the democratic process, established a prima facie case for relief under Section 71(1)(b) of the Election Act.