Vusumzi Msi

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion under the Solicitors Act to refer six prior, fully paid accounts rendered by the respondent solicitors for assessment.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the motion judge's order was a final disposition.

On the merits, the Court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary finding that there were no 'special circumstances' under s. 11 of the Solicitors Act to justify assessing accounts paid years earlier by other parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the motions judge, arguing that the judge erred in refusing an adjournment and in reaching his legal conclusion.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the exercise of the motions judge's discretion to refuse the adjournment, nor any reason to interfere with the legal conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board denying their request for consent to grant an easement over a neighbouring property to access utility services for their landlocked property.

The Board had determined that only the owner of the servient tenement could apply for such consent under s. 53(1) of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision that the dominant tenement owners did not constitute the 'owner' of the servient tenement for the purpose of the Act, and denied leave to appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding their right to an electricity connection under s. 28 of the Electricity Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants do not have an unqualified right to connection because their property can only be accessed over a third party's property and does not lie 'along any of the lines of the distribution system'.

The court held that Toronto Hydro's conditions of service requiring easements are reasonable and fall within its regulatory scheme.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and received weekly income benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits, alleging the applicant was no longer disabled and had post-accident earnings resulting in an overpayment.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks after the termination date, relying on surveillance evidence and the unreliability of her testimony.

The arbitrator recalculated the benefit amounts and determined the insurer had overpaid the applicant by $14,664 due to a failure to deduct post-accident income.

However, the arbitrator declined to order repayment, finding the overpayment resulted primarily from the insurer's own adjusting errors rather than the applicant's misrepresentations.