Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Criminal Decisions

Good afternoon.

Please find below our summaries of this past week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong, the Court issued its first decision regarding COVID-19. The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal to the Fall, given that in-person hearings are no longer taking place. Justice Paciocco denied the request for the adjournment. He was of the view that the backlog of appeals that will inevitably be created should not be aggravated by adjourning matters that can be fairly adjudicated in writing.

Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (MARCH 30 – APRIL 3, 2020)

Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Criminal Decisions | Ontario Review Board

Good evening.

Following are this past week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In 2352392 Ontario Inc. v. Msi, the Court held that a statement of claim constituted sufficient notice of rescission under ss 6(3) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. The Court stated that the purpose of notice under the Act is to avoid litigation, not to act as a pre-condition to litigation.

In Beniuk v. Leamington (Municipality), the plaintiffs alleged that heavy trucks using the road adjacent to their property caused vibrations that damaged their home. They unsuccessfully pursued a claim of injurious affection before the OMB, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. By the time that proceeding had been completed, more than two years had passed. They then sued the municipality, which successfully moved to have the claim dismissed as being statute-barred. The Court largely, but not completely, upheld the motion judge’s conclusions. The Court agreed with the motion judge that the Real Property Limitations Act (“RPLA”) does not apply to an action against a municipality in nuisance or negligence for damage relating to real property. Such an action is not one “to recover land” within the meaning of the RPLA. The Court also agreed that any claim for damages suffered more than two years before the claim was issued was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The fact that the plaintiffs had pursued a remedy at the OMB did not satisfy the “appropriate means” test so as to suspend the running of the limitation period while the OMB matter remained outstanding. However, the Court partially set aside the motion judge’s order to revive any portion of the claim for ongoing damage to the plaintiffs’ home that fell inside the two-year limitation period (since trucks continued to use the road and there was evidence of ongoing damage). . The Court also disagreed with the motion judge by leaving open the possibility that s. 44 of the Municipal Act creates a duty of care on the part of a municipality to keep roads in good repair owed not only to users of the road, but to adjacent landowners as well (the motion judge had found there was no duty to adjacent landowners).

Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (MARCH 23 – MARCH 27, 2020)