Thomas Currie Brook

The Respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the Appellant's notice of appeal under section 53 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules.

The Respondent argued that certain paragraphs related to the conduct of tax officials and were beyond the Court's jurisdiction, and that other paragraphs failed to comply with the large corporation rules.

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear allegations regarding the conduct and motivations of tax officials, striking those paragraphs without leave to amend.

However, the Court found that the Appellant had sufficiently described the issue of the validity of the protective reassessments in its notices of objection, satisfying the large corporation rules.

The Court also denied the Respondent leave under Rule 8 to strike the onus of proof paragraphs due to delay in bringing the motion.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a construction lien action, seeking a determination that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied to their residential cost-plus construction contract and that the plaintiff breached the CPA by exceeding budget estimates by more than 10 percent.

The court granted the motion in part, declaring that the CPA applies to the contract and that it is a 'consumer agreement'.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the specific budget line items constituted 'estimates' under the CPA and whether the parties had agreed to amend those estimates during the project.

The defendants in a construction lien action sought leave under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.

The proposed motion would determine whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to the cost-plus construction contract and whether the plaintiff overbilled by exceeding statutory estimates.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature pending discovery.

The court granted leave, finding that determining the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act would likely expedite the resolution of the issues in dispute, even if some factual issues ultimately require a trial.

The defendants, Eaton and the City of London, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's environmental contamination claims as statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged that historical manufacturing operations on the defendants' former property caused TCE contamination that migrated to the plaintiff's property.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual or objective knowledge of its potential claims against the defendants more than two years before seeking to add them to the action.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the ongoing migration of contaminants constituted a continuing tort or a continuing spill under the Environmental Protection Act.

The motions for summary judgment were granted and the claims against Eaton and the City were dismissed.