23 total
Appeal dismissed; mortgage security interests in SkyDome rank in priority to SkyBox leasehold interest.
The appellant, DeGasperis Muzzo Corporation, appealed a judgment declaring that the mortgage security interests of Montreal Trust and Stadco in the SkyDome ranked in priority to its leasehold interest in a SkyBox suite.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the mortgage instruments were registered prior to the leasehold interest under the Land Titles Act, and that the appellant had agreed to subordinate its interest in the lease.
The cross-appeal was also dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; university board of governors has exclusive jurisdiction over property and capital development.
The applicants sought judicial review to quash a resolution by the Trent University Board of Governors authorizing a capital development project that could involve closing or relocating two colleges.
The applicants argued the Board lacked jurisdiction without a concurring motion from the University Senate, which had passed a resolution opposing any change of location.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that under the Trent University Act, the Board has plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over the university's property, revenues, and expenditures, while the Senate's jurisdiction is limited to educational policy.
Public inquiry commissioners may make findings of misconduct provided they do not determine civil or criminal liability.
The appellants sought judicial review to quash notices of potential findings of misconduct issued by the Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada.
The appellants argued the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by making findings that amounted to civil or criminal liability, and that the late delivery of the notices breached procedural fairness.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a commissioner may make findings of misconduct and evaluate facts according to standards of conduct, provided they do not amount to conclusions of legal liability.
The Court also found the procedural protections afforded to the parties were extensive and the timing of the notices was fair given the complexity of the inquiry.