Purchase This Domain

Lease — Land lease community — Residential Tenancies Act — Termination of tenancy — Rules enacted by landlord — Moving parties refused to comply with rules requiring removal of canvas shed — Did the Landlord and Tenant Board and Divisional Court err in finding the rental unit was part of a land lease community? — No arguable issue raised — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 2(1), s. 154(1)Civil procedure — Extension of time — Leave to appeal — Moving parties sought extension of time to file notice of motion for leave to appeal and notice of appeal — Factors considered: intention to appeal, length of delay, prejudice, and merits — Lack of merit sufficient to deny extension — Justice of the case did not warrant extension — Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131Civil procedure — Stay of proceedings — Eviction order — Dismissal of action — Moving parties sought stay pending appeal — No serious issue to be tried — No irreparable harm demonstrated — Balance of convenience favoured responding parties — Rule 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure appliedConstitution — Charter of Rights — Section 15 — Conspiracy claims — Superior Court dismissed Charter and conspiracy claims for lack of proper pleading and reasonable cause of action — Claims raised issues within exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board — No arguable issue warranting appellate intervention

Criminal procedure — Bail — Revocation of release order — Application under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code to review a motion judge’s decision dismissing the Crown’s application to revoke bail — Did the motion judge err in law by concluding that the release order was a nullity due to a typographical error? — Release orders must be followed unless varied or revoked — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 679(6), 680(1)Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code — Typographical errors in court orders — Release order referred to the wrong statutory provision (bail pending appeal instead of bail pending new trial) — Does a typographical error render a release order a nullity? — Minor errors do not invalidate court orders if they do not prejudice the parties — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 679(7.1)Evidence — Breach of release conditions — Respondent found in the company of children under 16, contrary to release order conditions — Did the respondent contravene the conditions of the release order, justifying its revocation? — Evidence established breach on a balance of probabilities — Seriousness of breach warranted revocation of release order

Insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) — Priority disputes — Pre-arbitration expenses — Does Regulation 283 limit the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in disputes over pre-arbitration expenses? — Regulation 283 interpreted as reflecting a deliberate policy choice to limit expense reimbursements to deflection cases under s. 2.1(7)Insurance — Arbitration — Expense reimbursement — Can arbitrators order reimbursement of pre-arbitration expenses in priority disputes when there is no improper deflection? — Arbitrators cannot routinely invoke equitable principles to order reimbursement outside the express provisions of Regulation 283Insurance — Policy interpretation — Legislative intent — Should insurers bear their own pre-arbitration expenses except in cases of deflection? — Regulation 283 interpreted to prioritize cost reduction and clarity in arbitration, requiring insurers to bear their own expenses unless s. 2.1(7) appliesObligations — Arbitration Act, 1991 — Equity — Does the Arbitration Act, 1991 permit arbitrators to make expense reimbursement orders outside the scope of Regulation 283? — Arbitration Act does not override the specific regulatory framework of Regulation 283, which limits reimbursement orders to deflection cases