Ontario civil | Administrative Law
BOARDS AND TRIBUNALS
Claims for injurious affection properly fell within jurisdiction of Ontario Municipal Board
Motion judge found that appellant’s claim brought under Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (Ont.) (“CPA”), was in substance one for “injurious affection” and that such claims fell within exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”). Because of jurisdictional result, motion judge dismissed appellant’s action. Appeal was dismissed. In appellant’s action, combination of Expropriations Act (Ont.), and s. 36 of Ontario Municipal Board Act, clearly conferred jurisdiction over injurious affection claims on board. That appellant’s action proceeded under CPA, did not alter jurisdictional result. Insofar as claims against TTC were concerned, various claims advanced by appellant were being used to disguise what was claim for compensation that was within jurisdiction of board. With one exception, claims made against city were also claims for injurious affection that properly fell within jurisdiction of board. Allegation to intentionally harm others was not claim of injurious affection. Given history of matter, appellant was not provided with opportunity to amend its pleadings at this late juncture.
Curactive Organic Skin Care Ltd. v. Ontario (Feb. 7, 2012, Ont. C.A., Doherty, LaForme and Hoy JJ.A., File No. C53873) Decision at 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 915 was affirmed. 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1 (6 pp.).
Claims for injurious affection properly fell within jurisdiction of Ontario Municipal Board
Motion judge found that appellant’s claim brought under Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (Ont.) (“CPA”), was in substance one for “injurious affection” and that such claims fell within exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”). Because of jurisdictional result, motion judge dismissed appellant’s action. Appeal was dismissed. In appellant’s action, combination of Expropriations Act (Ont.), and s. 36 of Ontario Municipal Board Act, clearly conferred jurisdiction over injurious affection claims on board. That appellant’s action proceeded under CPA, did not alter jurisdictional result. Insofar as claims against TTC were concerned, various claims advanced by appellant were being used to disguise what was claim for compensation that was within jurisdiction of board. With one exception, claims made against city were also claims for injurious affection that properly fell within jurisdiction of board. Allegation to intentionally harm others was not claim of injurious affection. Given history of matter, appellant was not provided with opportunity to amend its pleadings at this late juncture.
Curactive Organic Skin Care Ltd. v. Ontario (Feb. 7, 2012, Ont. C.A., Doherty, LaForme and Hoy JJ.A., File No. C53873) Decision at 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 915 was affirmed. 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1 (6 pp.).
