Stuart Zacharias

Rivard v. Ontario (2025, C.A.) - Stuart represented the appellant chief of police and police services board on an appeal, with leave, from a decision declining to strike allegations of systemic wrongdoing. The claim against the police services board was struck out, and the decision clarified the pleading requirements for such claims.

Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. City of Hamilton (2024, Div. Ct.) - Stuart represented the respondent in a judicial application brought by the applicant political party after its proposed bus shelter advertisement was declined for publication. The respondent concluded that the ad could impact on its ability to provide a “safe and welcoming” transit system for its constituents. In particular, it concluded that running the ad could potentially impact the health and safety of transgender and non-gender conforming persons using the transit system. The application was dismissed and the respondent’s decision upheld. The applicant has sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Hasan v. Trillium Health Centre (Mississauga) (2024, C.A.) - Stuart represented the appellant on an appeal from a trial judgment in a case involving a delayed diagnosis of stroke. The appeal was dismissed in a decision which departed in a significant way from the previous case law on the test for causation in cases of negligent omission. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has been sought.

Breen v. Lake of Bays (2021, S.C.J.; 2022, C.A.) - Stuart represented the defendant municipality at trial in an action alleging negligent issuance of a building permit and negligent building inspection of a 5,000 square foot cottage which was constructed between 1989 and 1991. The trial judge allowed the action in part, finding that the municipality was liable for certain alleged Building Code deficiencies, but not others. Stuart assisted with the appeal, on the primary issue of whether the municipality had discretion on which inspections to conduct given that the Building Code Act of the day did not explicitly mandate inspections (as distinct from the subsequent legislation). While not going so far as to say a municipality necessarily had to conduct each and every potential inspection enumerated in the Building Code, the court held that in this case a final inspection was required by the “overall purpose” of the legislation existing at the time. However, the court reversed the trial judge’s findings of liability for certain non-Code compliant features of the cottage, holding that the test for liability is not merely that there is non-compliance with the Code; rather, it must be shown that a reasonable building inspector would have noticed the issue. The court also held that municipalities are not liable for issues caused by poor workmanship or poor maintenance by the owner, as distinct from derogations from the Code that a reasonable building inspector should have noticed.

Decision No. 960/21 (2021, ONWSIAT): Stuart successfully represented the applicant First Nation on an application under s. 31 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, resulting in a determination that the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the First Nation was statute-barred as the plaintiff was a worker in the course of her employment when the subject incident occurred.

Murphy v. Savoie (2019, C.A.) - Stuart acted for the plaintiff in successfully opposing the defendant insurer’s appeal from a motion decision which found the plaintiff to be an insured under the OPCF 44R family protection endorsement to her spouse’s employer’s auto insurance policy, arising from a pedestrian knock-down accident.

Martin v. City of Barrie (2016, S.C.J.; 2018, C.A.) - Stuart successfully defended the City of Barrie at trial in a claim arising from an alleged injury on a snow slide at the City’s “Winterfest” event. The court held that there was no breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act. Stuart also successfully represented the City on the plaintiff’s appeal from the trial judgment The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the City met the standard, which was one of reasonableness, not perfection.

Smith v. Attorney General (Ontario) et al. (2018, Div. Ct.; 2019, C.A.): Stuart represented the Durham Regional Police on this appeal, with leave, from a decision of the Divisional Court which reversed a motion decision refusing to strike the police crossclaim against the co-defendant Crown Attorneys. The case arose from a complex murder investigation and raised the novel issue of whether an investigating police force can claim indemnity from Crown Attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the conduct of the investigation.

Farley v. Ottawa Police Services Board (2016, S.C.J; 2017, C.A.): Stuart successfully represented the Ottawa Police on this appeal by the plaintiff, against whom Stuart had acted for the Ottawa Police in obtaining summary judgment. The court affirmed the granting of summary judgment based on determinations made in the underlying criminal proceedings, principally the Court of Appeal’s order for a second trial on the charge of first degree murder – which meant that a reasonable, properly instructed jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also dismissed.

Azzeh v. Legendre (2017, C.A.): Stuart successfully represented the City of Greater Sudbury on this appeal from a motion adding it as a defendant in an action arising from a serious motor vehicle accident. The court reversed the motion decision and held that the proposed claim against the City was barred by the 10-day notice period in the Municipal Act. The court also provided helpful guidance on the application of the Limitations Act where a litigation guardian is involved. The co-defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.

R. v. Bingley (2017, S.C.C.): Stuart acted for the intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in an appeal regarding the Criminal Code provisions with respect to evaluation of drug-impaired driving.

Rausch v. City of Pickering (2017, S.C.J.): Stuart successfully defended the municipality at trial in an action alleging that negligent enforcement of a bylaw caused the plaintiff to kill a number of wild boars on her property resulting in economic loss of approximately $2 million. The plaintiff also alleged malicious prosecution in connection with a charge under the bylaw. All claims were dismissed and the court expressed significant difficulty with the plaintiff’s credibility.

Martin v. Attard Plumbing Ltd. (2015, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the plaintiff in obtaining partial summary judgment in a subrogated action arising from water damage, wherein the court held that there was an implied warranty of fitness of the part installed by the defendant contractor.

Imola v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company (2014, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful insurer in opposing an application for a declaration that it owed a duty to defend, in a

matter where coverage had previously been denied on the ground, amongst others, of the exclusion for intentional or criminal acts.

Demets v. County of Brant (2013, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendant in obtaining summary judgment declaring that both the third party insurer and a co-defendant contractor owed a duty to defend a claim in which the plaintiff was allegedly rendered paraplegic in a cycling accident. Also obtained an order that the insurer pay full indemnity costs.

Mannen v. Brant (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful third party in obtaining summary judgment dismissing the third party claim as statute-barred.

Rekela-Morrish v. City of Timmins (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart successfully defended the City at trial against a claim of alleged roadway non-repair.

Alves v. Caston (2010, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful respondent, on an appeal which affirmed the enforcement of a settlement that included a provision that the opposing party sign a Release.

Bilotta v. Barrie Police (2010, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendants on a motion to strike improper allegations against the Police Services Board.

Deering et al. v. Scugog et al. (2010, S.C.J.): Stuart was part of the defence team at the multi-week liability trial of multiple actions against the municipalities alleging roadway non-repair in the context of a serious motor vehicle accident, resulting in a split liability decision.

Herbert v. Brantford (2010, S.C.J.): Stuart was part of the defence team at the multi-week liability trial of an action arising from a serious cycling accident on a recreational trail, resulting in a split liability decision.

Alexis v. Darnley (2009, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful respondent/intervenor, on an appeal which clarified that the Limitations Act, 2002 applies to claims for damages under the Charter. The appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.