The viability of Mr. Rausch’s negligence claim turns on three issues: first, whether the City may be said to owe either a statutory or common law duty of care; second, if a common law duty of care may be said to exist, whether Mr. Rausch has pleaded such a duty; and, third, if so, whether it is statute-barred. In my view, the statutory framework imposes no explicit duty of care. That said, I would not foreclose the possibility that Mr. Rausch may be able to establish an implied statutory duty of care. I am also of the view that Mr. Rausch’s amended pleading advances a viable common law duty of care – one that is not out of time. I would therefore confirm the order of the Divisional Court and dismiss the City’s appeal.The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the claim against the City was successful - it decided whether there was a possibility that it could be successful. As the decision was in the affirmative, the Court confirmed that the negligence claim could proceed to trial.
Based on my findings of fact, it is clear that there never was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of corn. The arrangement was that the third party, KT, would deliver bulk wet corn to the plaintiff’s premises in Centreville to be picked up by the defendant, the value of which would be applied by the defendant to the third party’s outstanding account. There being no contract of purchase and sale between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff’s action is dismissed. Given that there is no liability on the defendant, the defendant’s third party claim is dismissed.Read the decision at: Taylor’s Feed & Tires Ltd v Brennan Farms Ltd.
The matter arose as a result of two instances where [JW] sprayed a field directly across the road from the [N] property with what I understand to have been a herbicide. The Appellants argue this was done at a time when the wind speed and direction caused an overspray to spread onto their property, allegedly damaging raspberry canes and allegedly causing personal injury to both Mrs. [N] and to her horses. In addition, the Appellants complain about the impact of ditch excavation, as carried out by Mr. [W], and as to the placement of bales of hay or straw in the ditch, the escape of organic materials onto their property together with the impact or the potential impact that might have had on their well water. I emphasize repeatedly the word “allegedly.” The Appellants also allege, as I noted, that the herbicide impacted the health of their horses, specifically mares in foal. They say the mares were impacted and perhaps may have aborted as a result of the overspray. They allege, as I understand it, although I'm not reviewing in any great detail the allegations in the statement of claim, that it was not just the existing pregnancies that were impacted but the fertility of the mares on a go forward basis.
This Gas Storage Lease Agreement shall terminate on the tenth anniversary date, if an only if, the Lessee or some other person has not applied to the Ontario Energy Board to have the said lands or any part thereof designated as a Gas Storage area on or before the tenth anniversary date hereof.In spite of that clause, Tribute had argued at first instance and on appeal that its gas storage rights were not limited to the 1998 agreement. There were earlier agreements (an Oil and Gas Lease and a Unit Operation Agreement) that mentioned gas storage rights. However, both levels of court ruled that the 1998 agreement was intended to and did replace the earlier agreements. When that agreement expired, Tribute retained no gas storage rights.
"Where land that borders on a navigable body of water or stream, or on which the whole or a part of a navigable body of water or stream is situate, or through which a navigable body of water or stream flows, has been or is granted by the Crown, it shall be deemed, in the absence of an express grant of it, that the bed of such body of water was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee."The Crown Patent for both properties was issued on January 11, 1816 to a single owner. The original Patent did not contain any express grant of the bed of the watercourse. Therefore, if the watercourse was found to be navigable as of the date of the grant, then title to the bed of it would remain vested in the Crown.
The Applicants have not successfully justified their deviation from the Base Case assumption for medium and large diameter pipe in these two land-use sub-categories. During the course of the MH-001-2012 hearing, all Applicants made submissions to the Board as to why the Base Case assumptions of 80 per cent abandonment-in-place and 20 per cent removal should not be imposed. The Board considered these comments but does not find them convincing. In addition, the Board also considered Applicants’ responses to a Board request made during the course of the hearing. Applicants were asked to provide recalculated cost estimates for three theoretical scenarios – 10, 20 and 30 per cent removal on "Agricultural, Cultivated" and "Agricultural, Cultivated and Non-Cultivated" sub-categories, using their own methodologies. Finally, the Board considered the issues described above regarding easement agreements, landowner surveys, and the lack of provision for any site-specific issues that may necessitate removal. The Board has exercised its judgment in determining a reasonable assumption for medium and large diameter pipelines in the "Agricultural, Cultivated" and "Agricultural, Non-Cultivated" sub-categories. In the Board’s view, 20 per cent removal for medium and large diameter pipe in these land-use sub-categories is a reasonable, prudent and adequate starting point for estimating purposes.For the landowners and landowner groups who participated in the hearing process (at their own cost, given that there is no mechanism for cost recovery in the NEB hearing process and no participant funding available), this decision is a victory. However, it remains to be seen whether the 80/20 split and the companies' actual estimates of abandonment costs will be sufficient to protect landowners from the costs of pipeline abandonment in the future. The positions taken by the pipeline companies in the proceeding demonstrate that they will likely do everything in their power to avoid having to remove their abandoned pipelines from the ground.
I am sceptical of such an attempt to “bootstrap” the requirement to provide the necessary evidence to support a default judgment by procedural manoeuvring. While it is true that, particularly in contested proceedings, the Request to Admit process is useful in eliminating the need to prove certain facts, I am satisfied that such a Request cannot be a substitute for affidavit evidence required on a motion for default judgment. Rule 210(3) states that a motion for default judgment shall be supported by affidavit evidence which evidence, in the context of the Rules, I take to be directed to the substance of the claim and not just an affidavit of service. I agree that the Court might even have discretion in respect of certain of the practice and procedural provisions of the Rules. In this case, because there is no affidavit evidence, whatsoever, to support the allegations in the Statement of Claim, I will not exercise any discretion, even if I have it, to accept the unanswered Request to Admit in lieu of such affidavit evidence.