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 municipality 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 been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

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 has to 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.

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. 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.

City of Pickering ats Rausch (2017, S.C.J.): Stuart successfully defended the municipality at trial in an action alleging that negligent enforcement of a by-law 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 by-law. All claims were dismissed and the court expressed significant difficulty with the plaintiff’s credibility.

Ottawa Police ats Farley (2016, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the Ottawa Police Services Board in successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. After a jury convicted the plaintiff of first degree murder, he appealed and the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial based on a technical error in the trial judge’s charge to the jury. Following his acquittal at the second trial, the plaintiff sued the police for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation and alleged breach of Charter rights. Summary judgment was granted, however, based on determinations in the underlying criminal proceedings, principally the Court of Appeal’s order for a second trial – which meant that a reasonable, properly instructed jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Barrie ats Martin (2016, S.C.J.): 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.

DRPS ats Smith (2016, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the Durham Regional Police in successfully opposing the co-defendant Crown’s motion to strike the crossclaim, which advanced a novel claim for indemnity based on legal advice provided to the police during the course of an alleged “Mr. Big” investigation conducted in 2009 regarding a murder in 1974.

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.

Gore Mutual Insurance Company ats Imola (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.

Brant ats Demets (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 owed a duty to defend the plaintiff's claim.

Pickering ats Rausch (2013, C.A.): Stuart acted for the successful defendant in obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arising from a Rule 21 motion dealing with the scope of a municipality’s duty of care in the context of by-law enforcement.

Barrie ats McHardy (2012, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendant in obtaining leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, arising from a motion for summary judgment based on a statutory bar contained in the Municipal Act.

Gore Mutual Insurance Company ats Hayward (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart was the trial lawyer for the defendant insurer in an action arising from a denial of coverage following a fire loss.

Durham Regional Police ats Mohamed et al. (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendants, on an appeal from a Master's order which dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for production of any complaint and discipline records. The Master's decision was upheld and also found to be correct based on a subsequent decision of the Divisional Court.

Durham Police ats Murphy (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendants in opposing a motion to amend a claim on the ground that the proposed allegations were statute-barred.

Sault Ste. Marie Police ats Charette (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart acted for the successful defendants in opposing a motion to withdraw admissions and for partial summary judgment.

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

Timmins ats Rekela-Morrish (2011, S.C.J.): Stuart was the trial lawyer for the City of Timmins in successfully defending a claim of alleged roadway non-repair.

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

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

Scugog ats Deering (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.

Brantford ats Herbert (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.