William R. MacLarkey

The appellant Ministry of Transportation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against a contractor as statute-barred.

The parties' standard form construction contract required a notice of protest and alternative dispute resolution to be completed within two years of contract completion.

However, the referee's decision was not released until after this two-year period expired.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in interpreting the contract; it is commercially absurd to require a party to protest a decision before it is released.

Because the contractual limitation period could not apply, the statutory two-year limitation period governed, and the appellant's action was commenced in time.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

The Minister of Transportation (MTO) sued J & P Leveque Bros.

Haulage Ltd. (Leveque) for approximately $1.8 million, representing a refund of a provisional award made by a Referee Panel under a construction contract.

Leveque brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that MTO's claim was time-barred by a contractual limitation period within their business agreement, which supplanted the statutory limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court agreed with Leveque, finding that the contractual limitation period was clear and applicable, and that MTO had failed to comply with its own contract's timelines.

The court dismissed MTO's arguments that Leveque caused the delay or that MTO should be granted relief from forfeiture.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.

The Algonquins appealed a motion judge's decision to strike most of their claims against Ontario and the Métis Nation of Ontario regarding harvesting rights.

The core issue was Ontario's duty to consult and accommodate Algonquin interests before recognizing Métis communities and extending unlimited harvesting rights, which allegedly impacted Algonquin resources.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in striking claims for declaratory relief based on standing and in compelling the Algonquins to pursue judicial review instead of an action.

The court emphasized a generous approach to pleadings in Indigenous cases and that the duty to consult provides standing for consequential relief.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating most of the Algonquins' claims, while the cross-appeals by Ontario and the Métis Nation were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry deeming a competing company's aggregate permit application complete.

The Ministry processes applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

The applicant argued the competing application was incomplete as it failed to meet the requirements of the Provincial Standards and Ministry Policies regarding environmental and cultural heritage reports.

The Divisional Court found the Ministry's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its own mandatory policies when assessing completeness.

The decision was quashed, but the court declined to issue an order of mandamus, instead remitting the matter back to the Ministry for reconsideration.

The applicant nurses' union sought judicial review of two directives issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health regarding COVID-19 infection control and the use of N95 respirators.

The applicants argued the directives failed to account for aerosol and asymptomatic transmission and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the directives were reasonable as they expressly incorporated the precautionary principle and permitted nurses to access N95 respirators based on their professional judgment.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff staked unpatented mining claims on Crown land where the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) planned to build a realigned highway.

The plaintiff subsequently applied for aggregate permits, which were delayed and limited due to the highway construction.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming the MTO expropriated the property and sought compensation for the lost aggregate value.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that an unpatented mining claim is not 'land' under the Expropriations Act.

The court further held that even if it were land, the claims had no value because the plaintiff could not have obtained an aggregate permit for the entire property, and the property was not wrongfully downzoned.

The appellant appealed an order of the Master that allowed some amendments to its statement of claim but disallowed others on the basis that they advanced new causes of action barred by the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the disallowed amendments arose out of the same factual matrix as the original claim and merely clarified or expanded upon the existing allegations.

The court emphasized that pleadings should be read generously and amendments presumptively allowed unless they cause non-compensable prejudice or advance a completely separate claim.

The plaintiff, Eric Mezin, brought a motion for further particulars regarding the defendants' statements of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff alleged bullying, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation leading to his termination.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) and Daniel Cayen, denied the allegations and asserted that the termination was justified due to performance issues.

The court, applying Rules 25.06 and 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the particulars sought were necessary to define the issues, enable the plaintiff to plead a meaningful reply, and facilitate preparation for discovery, especially given the time limits on examinations for discovery.

The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to provide the particulars.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to construct a 33-car parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

The appellant argued the parking lot was not a permitted use and would cause environmental harm, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Study and master plan were required.

The Hearing Officers found that the parking lot is a permitted use as a Bruce Trail access point and satisfies all relevant Development Criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to issue the development permit was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct an asphalt parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

Following a telephone conference call, the Hearing Officer issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates for the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct a parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

Following a series of pre-hearing conferences, the Hearing Officer issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the parties to exchange issues lists and scheduling a further telephone conference call to confirm the issues and set dates for document exchange and the main hearing.

The defendant public authority moved for summary judgment dismissing a long-running action on the basis that the claims were barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 7(1) of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Hryniak and the public/private power analysis from Des Champs, the court held the record did not permit a confident determination that the impugned conduct correlated sufficiently with the exercise of a public duty or authority.

The evidentiary record suggested the defendant was acting both as regulator and as a commercial actor dealing with potential lessors of Crown near-shore oil rights.

Summary judgment was refused, a mini-trial was declined, and the action was directed to proceed to trial expeditiously.

The Ministry of the Environment appealed a CCAA judge's decision that environmental remediation orders issued against an insolvent company were subject to a stay of proceedings.

The insolvent company had abandoned a contaminated site after selling its other assets.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in AbitibiBowater, the Court of Appeal found it was sufficiently certain that the Ministry would perform the remediation work itself, making the regulatory orders in substance a provable monetary claim in the insolvency.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ministry of the Environment appealed a CCAA judge's order declaring that environmental remediation orders issued against the insolvent respondents were financial in nature and subject to a CCAA stay of proceedings.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in AbitibiBowater, the Court of Appeal held that ongoing environmental remediation obligations are only provable claims if it is sufficiently certain that the province will perform the work and seek reimbursement.

The Court found it was not sufficiently certain the MOE would perform the remediation for most of the sites, as the orders were also directed at subsequent owners.

The appeal was allowed, and the stay was modified to apply only to the portion of the London property still retained by the respondents.

The appellant operated a truck stop on Highway 17 that was effectively put out of business when the province constructed a new section of Highway 417, severely restricting access to the property.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Court of Appeal set aside the award, finding the Board failed to adequately balance competing rights and to recognize the elevated importance of public utility.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that reasonableness of interference must focus on whether the individual claimant has shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden of construction, not on whether the public benefit outweighs private harm.

The Board's decision was restored.

The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.

The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.

The appellants appealed from the Court of Appeal's reversal of the CCAA court's decision regarding the priority of pension plan wind-up deficiency claims over court-ordered DIP financing charges.

The majority held that wind-up deficiencies under s. 75(1)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act were subject to a statutory deemed trust under s. 57(4), but that the deemed trust was superseded by the DIP charge by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The majority further held that while the employer-administrator breached its fiduciary duty by failing to ensure the pension plan beneficiaries had adequate notice and representation in the CCAA proceedings, a constructive trust was not an appropriate remedy because the breach did not result in an identifiable asset that it would be unjust for the wrongdoer to retain.

The moving party sought certification of a class action alleging systemic physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of visually impaired students at a provincially operated residential school.

The claim alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the province’s operation and supervision of the institution over several decades.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including claims predating 1963.

It found an identifiable class, common issues relating to systemic misconduct, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims.

The proposed representative plaintiff and litigation plan were found adequate, and the action was certified as a class proceeding.