Alexandra Ferrier

The Municipality of Brockton charged Phillip M. Englishman with trespass under the Trespass to Property Act for entering the Saugeen Municipal Airport's taxiway and runway.

Englishman, a long-standing pilot with an access agreement, had been warned about outstanding issues.

The court addressed three main issues: federal vs. provincial jurisdiction over airport operations, whether Englishman breached his access agreement, and if he could establish a defence of colour of right.

The court found that jurisdiction over airport runways and taxiways is exclusively federal, thus quashing the provincial trespass charge.

Additionally, it found that Englishman had reasonably complied with the terms of his access agreement and therefore had a valid colour of right defence.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's action for unpaid 'extras' on a construction project.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the limitation period for unpaid construction invoices begins to run after a reasonable time for delivery and payment has passed, which in this case was more than two years before the action was commenced.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had no contractual right to demand final payment because it failed to provide a required statutory declaration confirming that all sub-trades had been paid.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application regarding a failed real estate transaction and the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondents sought costs of $15,859.77, claiming partial indemnity costs up to the date of their offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court reviewed the principles of costs, including proportionality, hourly rates, and travel time.

The court reduced the hourly rate for travel time by 50% but ultimately found the total amount claimed by the respondents to be reasonable and proportional.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs fixed at $15,859.77.

The applicant buyer sought a declaration that it had the exclusive right to terminate an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property requiring severance approval.

The respondent sellers had added a mutual termination clause during the sign-back process, which the buyer did not initial but included in subsequent offers.

The court found the APS was a binding contract and interpreted the mutual termination clause objectively, concluding that both parties had the right to terminate the agreement if severance approval was not obtained by the specified deadline.

The buyer's application was dismissed, and the Certificate of Pending Litigation was ordered discharged.