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 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 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.