HELD. Red Steer shall issue two separate checks for the penalty payment: (a) one check made payable to OEHHA in the amount of $2,250.00 representing 75% of the total penalty; and (b) one check to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Anthony E.. Held” in the amount of $750.00 representing 25% of the total penalty. Two separate 1099s shall be issued for the above payments. The checks and 1099s shall be delivered to the addresses listed in Section 3.3 below.
HELD. Motion allowed. The motion for discontinuance required an absence of prejudice to the class. Any requirement of good faith or reasonable grounds was relevant to the inquiry into the prejudicial effect on the interests of class members. There was no need to give weight to the interests of the defendants. The Teskey defendants did not have standing to oppose the motion for discontinuance, as they were not parties to the actions that the plaintiffs sought to discontinue. The commencement of the composite action did not improve their position with respect to actions to which they were not a party. Any actual or presumed prejudice to the Teskey defendants was not relevant to the determination related to discontinuance, as the purpose of s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act was to protect the interests of class members. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 12, s. 29, s. 29(1), s. 35 Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23.01(1)(a), Rule 23.01(1)(b) Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, S.0 2000, c. 16, Counsel: Harvin Pitch and Theodore P. Charney, for the Plaintiffs. John A. Campion, Antonio Di Domenico and Ian Gold, for 2094528 Ontario Inc., HGT Holdings Ltd., Teskey Construction Co. Ltd., and Teskey Concrete Co. Ltd. Lisa D. La Horey, for the Technical Safety Standards Authority. Ward Branch, for 1452049 Ontario Ltd. Cheryl Woodin, for the City of Toronto. Robert Potts and Mirilyn Sharp, for Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc,, 1367229 Ontario Inc., 1186728 Ontario Ltd., Valery Belahov, Shay (Sean) Ben-Moshe, Leonid Belahov and Arie Belahov. Paul Belanger, for 1369630 Ontario Inc. Bill Evans, for Scottish and York Insurance Co. DIRECTIONS
HELD. Appeal dismissed. The province's officials were bound to consult any resources necessary to make a properly informed decision on First Coal's amendment applications. These resources were not limited to First Coal's experts. The officials were bound to consider the treaty rights of the First Nations. The province failed to provide meaningful consultation to the First Nations in failing to consider the impact of First Coal's proposed future operations, not just the proposed sampling. Given that the First Nations historically hunted caribou, First Coal's proposed operations had the potential to adversely affect their treaty hunting rights. The judge did not err in considering the specific location and species of the First Nations' hunting practices. The province failed to address how the First Nations' concerns had been addressed by First Coal's plan to mitigate harm. It erred in proceeding on the premise that the exploration projects should proceed and that some sort of mitigation plan would suffice. It erred in treating the First Nations' right to hunt as inferior to the Crown's right to take up land for mining. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Constitution Act, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 44, Schedule B, s. 35, s. 35(1) Environmental Assessment Act, SBC 2002, CHAPTER 43, s. 8 Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, CHAPTER 241, s. 5, s. 6 Mines Act, RSBC 1996, CHAPTER 293, Reviewable Project Regulations, B.C. Reg. 370/2002, Part 3 -- Mine Projects Appeal From: On appeal from: Supreme Court of British Columbia, March 19, 2010, (West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2010 BCSC 359, Victoria Docket No. 09-4823). Counsel: Counsel for the Appellant, Province of British Columbia: K.J. Phillips and E.K. Christie. Counsel for the Respondent, First Coal Corporation: K.E. Clark and R. Robertson. Counsel for the Respondent, West Moberly First Nations: C.G.
HELD. The indicia of making the leasee responsible for the value at the end of the term means the transaction was driven by cost of ownership, not cost of its use for limited time. This is actually a financing agreement and not a true lease. Adelaide Capital Corp v. Integrated Transport Finance Inc, 1994, Ont GD Equipment leasing agreement.
HELD. (Maj) No security agreement was ever signed, so the PPSA does not apply. The buyer therefore kept the truck in a constructive trust for the dealer.
HELD. Appeal allowed. The judgment in favour of the corporation was set aside. The water hammer was not a fortui- tous event, but was a regular occurrence that the standpipe system failed to withstand because it was improperly de- signed or installed. The exclusion clause in the policy applied. Further, there was no evidence to support the position that the entire system needed to be replaced. A provision of the Condominium Act voiding exclusion clauses for resul- tant damage caused by faulty workmanship did not apply, as ING had already indemnified the corporation for the resul- tant damage. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
HELD. Action dismissed. The defendant insurer was not liable for the loss inflicted by the fire on the plaintiff. This was because by virtue of the changes that had occurred in the use of the property, and the plaintiff's failure to notify the defendant of those changes, the policy had ceased to be operative and the property had ceased to be insured thereunder. The court had no doubt that the changes to property use in this case were clearly material changes having the effect of increasing the risk within the meaning of statutory condition 4. Section 129 of the Insurance Act could not assist the plaintiff as it only referred to matters and steps involved in asserting a claim, after the loss has occurred. The language of the section, therefore, excluded requirements that must be fulfilled prior to the loss occurring, such as, in the plaintiff's case, a requirement to give notice of a change material to the risk. STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND RULES CITED: Insurance Act, s. 129. QL Update: 940915 d/sdd M. Roulston, for the Plaintiffs.
HELD. Action allowed. The agreement was void ab initio and the buyers were entitled to rescind the contract. The deposit was ordered to be released forthwith. The inaccurate statement as to the property's acreage was a substantial overstatement which, having regard to the buyers' intention for the property, was such as to entitle them to rescind the contract. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 14, 14.05(3)(d), 14.05(3)(h). Counsel: David M. Sanders, for the applicants. Alan D. Direnfeld, for the defendants ¶ 1 SHEPPARD J.:— The parties entered into a standard form Toronto Real Estate Board agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property located in Vaughan. The agreement was dated April 3rd, 2000. The purchase price was $1,110,000 with a deposit of $100,000. Requisition date was May 15th, 2000. Closing date was June 1st, 2000.