Thomas Joseph Hanrahan

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities against a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Town of Fort Erie.

The appeal concerns servicing and sewage disposal facility requirements.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant, 2639723 Ontario Inc., without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe head injury after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs sought to extend the time to set the action down for a non-jury trial to assess damages, while the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, and the decision was upheld on appeal.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit bifurcation of a non-jury trial without consent.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 did not abolish the court's inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials in exceptional cases without consent.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from construction on an adjacent property and a failed retaining wall, or alternatively, to transfer the action to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for interference with their home's use and enjoyment, including punitive and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning punitive damages and the complex nature of the crossclaims.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a "rare procedure" and that the motion did not meet the objectives of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability as outlined in *Hryniak* and *Butera*.

The applicants sought a development permit to recognize the change in use of an unauthorized second dwelling to an accessory use and to carry out driveway alterations.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approved the application, which the appellants appealed.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement with revised conditions.

The Hearing Panel found the revised conditions strengthened the protections for the Escarpment lands and confirmed the Commission's decision with the agreed-upon revisions, dismissing the appeal.

At a pre-hearing conference for an appeal of a development permit approval, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake requested participant status.

The parties consented to the request.

The Hearing Panel granted the Town participant status, allowing it to receive documents and participate in settlement discussions.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

Following a two-day family law trial, the respondent sought costs of $9,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that while the respondent was more successful on issues such as retroactive child support and the date of separation, the applicant also had some success and the respondent's handling of a joint line of credit made the trial inevitable.

Recognizing the applicant's decision to put the children first rather than pursue other financial strategies, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This trial decision addresses disputes over the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and retroactive child support.

The court determined the separation date as May 1, 2013, rejecting the applicant's earlier claim due to inconsistent actions like marriage counselling and joint debt renewal.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $21,802 for equalization and $1,168 for retroactive child support, with RRSP withdrawals included in Line 150 income for support calculations.

The matrimonial home was ordered partitioned and sold, and joint custody of the remaining child was granted.

Claims for spousal support, rental income, and occupation rent were dismissed.

An insurer sought intervenor status in an action brought by insureds against third-party defendants to pursue a subrogated claim.

The insurer had failed to commence its own subrogated claim within the applicable limitation period.

The Court of Appeal held that an insured has no contractual or statutory obligation to include an insurer's subrogated claim in its action.

The insurer's failure to pursue its own claim within the limitation period could not be cured by seeking intervenor status.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

This is a corrigendum to an endorsement issued on February 24, 2016.

The court corrected paragraphs 22 and 24 to reflect that one child is no longer a child of the marriage, terminating the applicant's child support obligation for that child effective June 1, 2015.

Child support for the remaining child was recalculated to $639.00 per month based on the applicant's 2015 income.

Following a costs endorsement, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing pre-judgment interest and security for costs.

The court found no special circumstances to depart from the statutory pre-judgment interest rate of 4.5 percent.

Additionally, the court ordered the return of the $10,725 security for costs, plus any interest, to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sued their insurer for allegedly breaching a hold harmless agreement related to outstanding accounts from health service providers.

When the insurer failed to deliver statements of defence, the plaintiffs obtained a noting in default and a default judgment.

The motion judge refused to set aside the defaults.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the defaults, finding that the insurer had a reasonable explanation for its failure to defend because the hold harmless agreements had not yet been triggered, and that the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice from setting aside the defaults.

Homeowners sued a property management company for breach of contract and negligence after tenants placed by the manager operated a methamphetamine lab that caused an explosion and rendered the property uninhabitable.

The court found the manager misrepresented that the management contract was identical to a sample contract, which altered a liability clause from negligence to gross negligence.

Applying principles from cases including Tilden Rent-A-Car v. Clendenning and Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., the court held the defendant was estopped from relying on the altered limitation clause.

The manager breached its contractual obligations and the standard of care by failing to conduct promised tenant screening, failing to disclose deficiencies in the screening process, and failing to pursue eviction when arrears and warning signs emerged.

These failures caused the plaintiffs’ loss.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the Statement of Claim to replace the fictitious name 'John Doe' with the name of the defendant insurer's employee, Maria Diolanda.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing it was an attempt to add a new party after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found that the original pleading clearly pointed the 'litigation finger' at the person who sold the insurance policy, making this a case of misnomer rather than adding a new party.

The motion to correct the misnomer was granted.

The appellants appealed an order finding that their commercial lease was not renewed and had not become a yearly tenancy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the tenancy did not become a yearly tenancy requiring six months' notice because the lease contained a no-overholding clause.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them based on surveillance evidence showing him working at his pizza business.

The arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claims for ongoing and increased weekly income benefits, replacement worker wages, and travel expenses.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding ample evidence to support the conclusions and no errors of law.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant, a physiotherapist, sought statutory accident benefits including weekly income benefits and physiotherapy expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had opened his own physiotherapy clinic shortly after the accident and billed the insurer for self-administered treatments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his disability and need for treatment to be unreliable and entirely without merit, noting an irreconcilable conflict of interest in his self-treatment and billing practices.

The claims were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the insurer's $1,000 assessment fee due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the arbitration.