Sheila Colleen Handler

The appellant, a former foster parent, appealed the striking of his claims against child welfare agencies for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from an investigation into allegations of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and Charter claims, confirming that child welfare agencies do not owe a duty of care to foster parents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, restoring the misfeasance in public office claim against one agency, finding that the pleadings and particulars sufficiently alleged bad faith and collaboration with malicious adoptive parents.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment attacking a police towing procurement process, challenging municipal towing licensing requirements, and alleging unlawful interference with economic interests.

The court held that the applicable procurement thresholds under the municipal purchasing by-law turned on the municipality’s annual expenditure, not the supplier’s anticipated revenue, so no RFT or RFP was required and no procurement breach occurred.

The court further found no breach of procurement-related duties of fairness or good faith, no basis to invalidate the towing contract awarded to the successful bidder, and no merit to the claim that an out-of-municipality towing operator was exempt from Windsor’s licensing regime when towing within the city.

The tort claim also failed because the impugned police conduct did not constitute actionable unlawful means against third parties and there was no proof of intention or damages.

The plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was dismissed, the defendants’ cross-motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.

The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.

The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.

The applicants, property owners along Erie Shore Drive, appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee regarding preliminary issues in their application for damages against the municipality for failing to maintain and repair the Burk Drainage Works.

The municipality cross-appealed the Referee's finding that section 79 of the Drainage Act is a strict liability provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Referee's findings that the applicants' initial notice was insufficient, that damages are limited to those occurring 45 days after proper notice is given, that historical seawalls had been lawfully replaced rather than abandoned, and that section 79 imposes strict liability without requiring proof of common law injurious affection.

The appellant, the Municipality of Chatham Kent, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Aston J. dated November 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.

The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to London.

The plaintiffs, who were injured in a bicycle-motor vehicle collision in London but now reside in Sarnia, opposed the transfer and requested the matter be transferred to Sarnia instead.

The court applied the holistic test under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the collision occurred in London, the municipal defendant's snow clearing practices were at issue, and London offered significantly better judicial resources and courtroom availability, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to London.

The plaintiff, an infant who allegedly sustained a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel her mother (the defendant driver) to be present during all of her medical appointments and assessments.

The plaintiff also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motion after the trial record had been passed.

The court granted leave, emphasizing the interests of justice for an infant plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for the mother to be present in the examination room, finding the defence's proposal—that the mother could accompany the plaintiff and be interviewed separately, while another chaperone could be in the room—struck a reasonable balance.

The Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and consent to sever, as well as its failure to make a decision on a site plan application.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and scheduled an eight-day hearing for July 2022, allowing time for a related heritage matter to be resolved.

A Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The appellants, landlords of student housing, appealed the dismissal of their claims for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, Charter violations, and bad faith against fire prevention officers and the City of Windsor.

The claims arose after the appellants were charged with Fire Code violations for operating their properties as lodging houses, which charges were later withdrawn or acquitted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the fire prevention officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges, did not conduct a negligent investigation, and did not act with malice.

The court also dismissed the Papic appellants' additional claims related to property development delays, finding them to be policy decisions or lacking legal basis.

The defendants appealed a motions judge's decision refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution on a summary judgment motion.

The claims arose after the plaintiff was acquitted of sexual assault charges, with the trial judge finding the complainant lacked credibility on collateral issues.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in equating the trial judge's adverse credibility findings on collateral issues with 'overwhelming evidence' that would vitiate the police's reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and prosecution.

The remaining claims were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the officer had subjective reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, finding it supported by evidence and objectively reasonable.

The allegation of negligent investigation was dismissed because the appellants failed to present expert evidence on the standard of care to rebut the police's evidence.

The court affirmed that summary judgment in favour of a defendant was appropriate in this case.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff landlords sued the City of Windsor and its fire investigators for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution after being charged with operating non-compliant boarding, lodging, or rooming houses under the Fire Code.

The plaintiffs argued the investigators lacked reasonable grounds and were motivated by a desire to curb student housing.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the investigator had reasonable grounds to believe the properties were rooming houses based on the statutory definitions, and that he acted reasonably by seeking advice before laying charges.

The court also found no evidence of malice or oblique motive.

On a summary judgment motion by police defendants in a civil action for negligent investigation, bad faith, and Charter damages arising from withdrawn sexual assault charges, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the reasonable and probable grounds standard, the court found the investigating officer had a sufficient objective and subjective basis to arrest and charge based on the complainant’s allegations and corroborative investigative steps.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the complainant’s alleged Reactive Attachment Disorder as a basis to negate grounds, emphasizing that such a diagnosis did not eliminate the need to investigate or require corroboration.

The absence of expert evidence from the plaintiffs on the police standard of care was fatal.

Claims against the police defendants, including the request to erase the arrest record, were dismissed.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiffs to the Lowe's defendants at $114,091.83 and to the Windsor Police Service (WPS) defendants at $91,841.47, on a joint and several basis.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments of impecuniosity and public interest litigation, finding they failed to provide robust financial disclosure and that their claims were primarily private in nature despite involving Charter rights.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and that the costs sought were reasonable given the complexity and duration of the action, and the WPS defendants' offer to settle.

The plaintiff City of Windsor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant engineering company, RC Spencer Associates Inc., seeking 50% of damages paid to homeowners for sewage backups.

The City alleged Spencer provided incomprehensible drawings for a sewer separation project, leading to the removal of an essential overflow mechanism.

The court ordered a mini-trial to hear oral evidence regarding the clarity of the drawings.

The court found both parties negligent, with Spencer's drawings lacking sufficient detail for the contractor and inspector to understand the need to maintain the overflow, and the City being negligent as the final reviewer and inspector.

The court apportioned liability equally, ordering Spencer to pay 50% of the damages.

On summary judgment motions by police defendants and retail defendants arising from arrests connected to a fraudulent credit-card retail pickup scheme, the court dismissed the action against all moving parties.

The court held that claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and related Charter breaches were discovered on arrest and were statute-barred, and further held that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for a warrantless arrest.

The negligent investigation claims against police failed because the record did not show a breach of the standard of care and no expert evidence was adduced where such evidence was required.

The negligent investigation claims against the retail defendants also failed because no duty of care was recognized on the facts under the Anns/Cooper framework, and in any event no breach of any applicable standard was established.

Derivative family claims and related claims for nervous shock were also dismissed.

The plaintiff purchased a landlocked commercial property with the intention of developing it.

The property abutted a Home Depot, which had a site plan control agreement with the City requiring it to negotiate a reciprocal access agreement with the abutting property owner if required.

The plaintiff sued the City and Home Depot, alleging they frustrated its development by delaying or denying access, claiming negligence, nuisance, breach of contract, and proprietary estoppel.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding that many of the plaintiff's claims were not properly pleaded, the City owed no duty of care to preserve access, no negligent misrepresentations were made, and Home Depot acted in good faith in negotiating the access agreement, which was inherently complex and conditional.

Appellants appealed the dismissal of their action alleging negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and Charter damages arising from the respondents' investigation of a fire at a rental house.

The fire was intentionally set by a resident, but spread rapidly due to Fire Code violations.

The appellants were charged with arson by negligence under s. 436 of the Criminal Code.

The charge against one appellant was withdrawn; the other was discharged at preliminary inquiry.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay charges and acted in good faith without malice.

The appellants appealed, arguing the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds because they lacked the requisite mens rea.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that under the modified objective test for negligence-based offences, the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the marked departure from the standard of care inferred from Fire Code violations.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant engineering firm for 50% of the damages paid to homeowners due to a sewage backup.

The municipality alleged the defendant's design drawings for separating storm and sewage drains were unclear, leading to the removal of an overflow mechanism.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial because the key witness who implemented the design in the field did not provide an affidavit.

The court ordered a mini-trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) to hear oral evidence from this witness regarding the clarity of the drawings.