Barry C. Fick

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a 13.4-metre tall accessory structure on an agricultural property.

The proposed structure, intended for storing collectibles and observation, significantly exceeded the 6.5-metre height limit for residential accessory buildings.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal met the general intent of the Official Plan, it failed the remaining three tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The variance was not minor, did not maintain the intent of the zoning by-law, and was not desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants filed a request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's 120-page statement of claim, arguing the issues had already been litigated before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1, finding that the res judicata argument required referencing extrinsic evidence, which is inappropriate for a Rule 2.1 request unless the conclusion is plain and obvious.

The court directed the defendants to bring a formal motion on notice.

The applicants sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over portions of the respondents' adjacent cottage property, or alternatively, a prescriptive easement for access and utility maintenance.

The properties were originally owned by family members who built cottages without regard to formal lot lines.

The court granted the applicants ownership of one portion (Part 3) by adverse possession, finding they had effectively excluded the true owners by building an extension and retaining wall.

The court also granted a limited prescriptive easement over another portion (Part 2) for an existing underground septic system.

The claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement over the remaining disputed lands, including a shared driveway, were dismissed.

The applicant, a black man of African origin, alleged racial discrimination in employment after being excluded from a collaborative pilot project by the respondent organizations.

The respondents claimed the exclusion was due to the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the unworkability of the arrangement.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the factual disputes regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion required a full hearing to resolve.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $1,500 in general damages and $1,500 in punitive damages for wrongful collection efforts.

The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in refusing an adjournment when their counsel was unavailable.

The Divisional Court upheld the refusal to adjourn, finding the decision discretionary and justified.

However, the court allowed the appeal on damages, reducing general damages to $565 for out-of-pocket legal expenses, as there was no evidence of recognizable psychiatric illness to support damages for mental distress.

The punitive damages award was set aside because the collection agency's conduct, while careless and frustrating, was not malicious.

The action against the individual employee was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its third party action against a guarantor.

The trial judge found that the guarantee relied upon by the Registrar's Advisory Committee to approve a builder's registration application was forged, and therefore invalid and unenforceable against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,000 on a quantum meruit basis for unpaid boiler repair work.

The appellant argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief under section 96(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that quantum meruit is a common law remedy, not an equitable one.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if it were an equitable remedy, section 23(1) of the Act grants the Small Claims Court jurisdiction to award equitable relief in the form of monetary payments up to its jurisdictional limit.

The deceased, knowing he was terminally ill, secretly transferred his business assets and the matrimonial home to his children to defeat his wife's equalization claim under the Family Law Act.

After his death, the wife elected to take an equalization payment rather than her legacy under the will and sought to set aside the transfers under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision setting aside the transfers, finding that the wife qualified as a 'creditor or other' under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act because she had an imminent right to apply for equalization at the time of the transfers.

The Court confirmed that the Family Law Act does not oust the operation of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.