Talia Gordner

The defendants moved to stay a civil action and an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) proceeding, arguing that concurrent proceedings alongside an Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) prosecution for by-law infractions would prejudice their right to a fair trial and against self-incrimination.

The court temporarily stayed the civil action to avoid duplicative proceedings, noting the plaintiff's undertaking not to seek double recovery.

However, the court dismissed the motion to stay the ERT proceeding, finding that existing statutory protections and undertaking rules were sufficient to protect the defendants' rights in the OCJ prosecution.

The appellants appealed a municipal order requiring them to pay costs for cleaning up an oily contamination spill.

Parallel civil and by-law proceedings were also ongoing.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the appeal pending the Superior Court's decision on a motion to stay the civil and administrative proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further telephone conference call.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, alleging "theft of trade secret" related to shilajit in vitamin compositions.

The plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim of a "trade secret" was invalid because the information had been publicly disclosed through patent applications, thereby forfeiting any confidentiality.

Furthermore, the plaintiff had assigned all rights, title, and interest in the invention to Creative Nutrition Canada Corp. in 1991, thus lacking proprietary interest to assert any claim.

The court concluded that the statement of claim, even with proposed amendments, was certain to fail.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

The applicants, owners of a designated heritage property, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind farm project.

The applicants argued the Director failed to properly interpret the REA Regulation regarding cultural heritage and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness, the Director's decision to issue the REA was reasonable and balanced the statutory priorities, and the comprehensive procedural code in the REA Regulation fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness.

The plaintiff, Riva Plumbing Limited, brought a motion to consolidate its action (the "Riva Action") with a wrongful dismissal action brought against it by a former employee, Aleem Aziz (the "Aziz Action").

The court applied the threshold test for consolidation under Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that while there were some common facts, there were no common questions of law or fact of sufficient importance to warrant consolidation.

The court also considered factors such as avoiding multiplicity of proceedings (Courts of Justice Act s. 138) and achieving a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination (Rule 1.04).

It concluded that consolidation would not achieve a just outcome, particularly given the Aziz Action was proceeding under Simplified Rules, which would lose its advantages if consolidated with a complex action.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The defendant sought costs after being partially successful on a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.

The court found that while the defendant succeeded in obtaining a stay and requiring the plaintiffs to add her to an existing action, she had over-reached by seeking a complete dismissal of the claim.

Because the defendant's unsuccessful arguments consumed significant time and posed an existential threat to the plaintiffs' case, the court concluded that success was truly divided.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs of the motion.

The defendant moved to strike the claim as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d).

The court found the claim was not frivolous or vexatious but constituted an abuse of process because the conspiracy and fraud claims were substantially identical to those in a pending "Weeks Action," and the plaintiffs commenced a new action instead of seeking leave to amend the existing one.

The court declined to strike the action entirely, instead staying the proceeding to allow the plaintiffs to seek leave to add the defendant to the "Weeks Action." The stay could be lifted if the plaintiffs were unable to add the defendant due to prejudice or limitation periods arising after this action's commencement.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

The Moving Parties sought a stay or adjournment of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project, pending the outcome of their application for judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal determined the request was for an adjournment rather than a stay.

Applying its Rules of Practice, the Tribunal found that an adjournment was not justified, as the judicial review would not necessarily resolve the issues before the Tribunal, and delaying the hearing would prejudice the appellant and not serve the public interest in timely proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging environmental contamination of the plaintiff’s property by petroleum hydrocarbons migrating from a neighbouring former gas station site.

The defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act because it was commenced more than two years after the claim was discoverable.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known of the material facts supporting a claim by March 2012 through environmental investigations conducted during its due diligence period.

The later Phase II environmental report merely confirmed suspicions already known.

The court also rejected the argument that ongoing contamination constituted continuing damage that created a new limitation period due to lack of evidence of fresh damages.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action as out of time.

The added parties brought a motion for a stay of the proceedings or an adjournment of the hearing regarding the refusal of a Renewable Energy Approval for two wind turbines.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.