Stephen Bryan William Chisholm

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions and orders of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000, to be awarded at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law designating its property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the scheduled settlement hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement but required more time to execute signed minutes of settlement.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter to a written settlement hearing.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving a minor variance to permit the existing use of lands for heavy vehicle operations in an agricultural zone.

At the onset of the hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the municipality had proposed a settlement to the applicant.

On consent, the scheduled merit hearing was converted to a case management conference, and a further hearing date was scheduled to allow the parties to present a settlement or proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to file a costs outline.

The respondent fire department brought a motion to dismiss the appellant tenant's appeal of a fire safety inspection order without a hearing.

The inspection order required the removal of combustible materials from the appellant's apartment.

The Commission found that the appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous appeal of an identical 2022 inspection order.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal under Rule 3.4(a) of the Common Rules, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and commenced in bad faith.

The Hamilton Fire Department applied to the Fire Safety Commission for authorization to complete work previously ordered against a tenant to remove combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the tenant had not complied or was unlikely to comply with the order, as the inspector's evidence of non-compliance was based on an inspection conducted more than a year prior to the hearing.

The plaintiff brought an action against a police officer and the police services board for intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, and bullying.

The officer, who was the ex-spouse of the plaintiff's boyfriend, had conducted brief, unauthorized searches of the plaintiff's name in a police database for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the intrusion upon seclusion claim, finding the searches were a minimal invasion of privacy that a reasonable person would not consider highly offensive.

The court also dismissed the harassment claims, concluding the officer's communications were not outrageous or threatening, and found no basis for vicarious liability against the police services board.

The appellant landlord appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that granted an extension of time to comply with a fire inspection order regarding excessive combustible materials in a tenant's unit.

The landlord sought a further extension of up to seven months, arguing it could not comply without the uncooperative tenant's consent and was pursuing eviction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the extension, prioritizing the fire and life safety of the building's residents and noting the uncertainty of the LTB proceedings.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's dismissal of their action for damages against the City of Hamilton, which arose from a motorcycle accident caused by a pavement discontinuity.

The trial judge had found the City established a defence under the Municipal Act, 2001, by meeting Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in determining the height of the discontinuity, as the City failed to meet its onus to prove compliance with MMS.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of contributory negligence, attributing 100% fault to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed, and judgment was granted for the appellants.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Hamilton Fire Department requiring her to remove excessive combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment to ensure fire safety.

The Fire Marshal referred the matter directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the quantity and location of combustible materials in the apartment posed a significant fire safety risk, endangering the occupant, neighbours, and first responders.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but amended the compliance date to allow the appellant 30 days to complete the required actions.

The appellant, a residential tenant with a mobility disability, installed a chairlift on a shared interior exit stairway.

The local fire department issued an inspection order requiring its removal, citing a violation of the Ontario Fire Code requirement that means of egress remain free of obstructions.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, arguing the chairlift was necessary for accessibility and did not impede passage.

The Commission upheld the order, finding that the chairlift significantly reduced the stairway width and constituted an obstruction that could delay or impede occupants and firefighters during a fire emergency.

The compliance date was extended to allow the appellant time to find alternative accommodations or propose an alternative solution.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality for damages arising from a single-vehicle motorcycle accident caused by a surface discontinuity at an intersection.

The court assessed the plaintiffs' damages, including general damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act claims.

However, applying the four-part test for municipal liability under section 44 of the Municipal Act, the court found that while the roadway was in a state of non-repair that caused the accident, the municipality successfully established a statutory defence because the height of the discontinuity met the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff was parked in his vehicle with a friend when approached by police.

The police demanded his driver's licence, which he refused to provide, questioning the reason for the stop.

The police forcibly removed him from the vehicle, grounded him, handcuffed him, and searched his vehicle, finding only a Bluetooth device.

He was then released.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, assault, false arrest, and Charter breaches.

The court found the police were conducting a criminal investigation without articulable cause, not a Highway Traffic Act stop.

The detention, arrest, and search were unlawful, and the force used was unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff and his family $59,800 in tort damages, but declined to award additional Charter or punitive damages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, and disability, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to transfer requests, cleaning duties, parking, and vandalism, finding no evidence linking the events to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding racially offensive and disability-related notes posted on the applicant's door and a bulletin board to proceed, finding that the issue of whether they created a poisoned environment required a full hearing on the merits.

The plaintiff was awarded damages of $28,503.25.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $57,131.45, while the defendants argued for no costs due to the plaintiff's failure to use the simplified procedure under Rule 76, despite the judgment being under $100,000.

The court found it was not reasonable for the action to proceed under ordinary procedure but declined to deny all costs.

Applying the discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, and considering factors like proportionality, the modest damages, and inefficiencies, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $15,000, all inclusive, for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the police for negligence, false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at a house party.

The court found that the police officer assaulted the plaintiff without justification, falsely arrested him without reasonable and probable grounds, and maliciously prosecuted him for assaulting a peace officer.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, special damages for the cost of defending the criminal charge, and punitive damages, totaling $28,503.25.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of the full Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigative file in a civil action alleging negligence, assault, and Charter breaches arising from a police use-of-force incident.

The SIU, a non‑party, resisted production of certain civilian and police witness statements that had been obtained under assurances of confidentiality.

The court applied the factors from Ontario (Attorney General) v. Stavro and emphasized that a moving party must demonstrate both relevance and that proceeding to trial without the documents would be unfair.

The court found the plaintiff had not made reasonable efforts to obtain evidence from available witnesses and could not rely on the SIU investigation as a substitute for civil discovery.

Production of the remaining witness statements was therefore refused.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from a 2009 fire.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as statute-barred because the statement of claim was issued in September 2013, outside the two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the discoverability principle did not assist the appellant as he was aware of his psychological difficulties by July 2011.

The defendants moved to strike or dismiss a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches arising from a police detention following an assault investigation.

The plaintiffs commenced their action more than two years after the incident but argued that the limitation period should be extended under the discoverability rule due to alleged ongoing investigations involving police and a regulatory authority.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence linking later investigations to the incident giving rise to the claim or demonstrating that the claim could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.

Applying the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, the court found the action was commenced out of time.

The defendants’ motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Following an earlier endorsement finding negligence in the prosecution of the action and ending the proceeding against the defendants, the defendants sought costs of $5,535.87.

The court considered the conduct of the plaintiff and counsel, including procedural errors and inadequate explanation for improperly placing the matter on the trial list.

The court also considered settlement correspondence regarding costs exchanged after the earlier endorsement.

While finding the plaintiff’s conduct warranted sanction, the court held the defendants’ request for more than double their earlier settlement proposal was excessive.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the reduced amount of $2,500 inclusive.