Brian Duxbury

The appellant challenged a municipal by-law regulating the destruction or injury of trees and woodlands, arguing it conflicted with Crown patents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the by-law, finding that Crown patents, as grants of title, do not immunize land or owners from municipal regulation exercised under the Municipal Act.

The court also assumed, without deciding, that the appellant had standing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to quash the Regional Municipality of Niagara's Woodland Conservation Bylaw, arguing it was ultra vires, conflicted with a historic Crown Patent and provincial statutes, and was impermissibly vague.

The applicant contended that the Crown's previous relinquishment of tree reservations meant the municipality could not regulate tree destruction on the property.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the bylaw was a valid exercise of the municipality's regulatory powers under section 135 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Crown Patent did not supersede provincial or municipal authority to regulate land use, and the bylaw's definitions were sufficiently clear.

The plaintiffs brought a motion requiring the defendants, as Estate Trustees, to pass the accounts.

After six adjournments, the plaintiffs requested a further deferral to address unanswered questions.

The court declined to prolong the matter, noting the depletion of estate assets, and dismissed the motion on a without prejudice basis.

The plaintiffs also consented to dismiss the claim against one defendant.

The court awarded costs of $5,100 for the dismissed claim and $16,156.27 for the motion to the defendants, payable forthwith by the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought a declaration that his property's seasonal use as a "camping and recreational compound" with a travel trailer constituted a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The respondent, an adjacent landowner, counter-applied for a declaration that the use was not lawful.

The court found the relevant zoning by-law clear and unambiguous, permitting only "park" or "open pavilion" uses in the "Hazard Land Zone," thereby prohibiting the applicant's recreational vehicle use.

The applicant failed to establish a legal non-conforming use or that the municipality was estopped from enforcing the by-law due to "officially induced error," as the municipal officials who provided advice lacked the authority to bind the municipality on zoning matters.

The application was dismissed, and the counter-application was granted.

The applicant, Green Relief Inc., sought approval of a transaction for the sale of its assets to 2650064 Ontario Inc. in the course of a CCAA proceeding.

The transaction included a condition precedent releasing claims against current directors, legal counsel, the Monitor, and its counsel.

Certain founding shareholders opposed the release, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to grant it prior to a plan of arrangement and that they wished to pursue claims for loss of chance.

The court approved the transaction and the release, finding the sale process was reasonable and the release was rationally connected to the restructuring, benefiting creditors by preventing the depletion of the estate through indemnity claims.

The court temporarily lifted the stay of proceedings to allow claims covered by tail insurance to be filed.

This is a costs decision following a judgment that set aside a will and power of attorney due to undue influence by Robert Graham.

The applicant, Timothy Graham, sought costs from Robert personally.

The court found Robert liable for costs due to his actions in the making of the will and transfer of assets.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by Robert to Timothy and also awarded a portion of Timothy's costs to be paid from the estate, recognizing the benefit to other siblings.

The court declined to award costs on a higher than partial indemnity scale, noting that Timothy's settlement offer did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer.

The appellant, a tobacco manufacturer on the Six Nations reserve, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of the Minister of Finance's demand for security under section 12(2)(f.1) of the Tobacco Tax Act.

The appellant manufactured tobacco for export and for sale on First Nations reserves, neither of which were subject to Ontario's tobacco tax.

The appellant argued the Minister's interpretation of the security requirement was unreasonable and that the provision was unconstitutional as an indirect tax on exported goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the Minister's interpretation reasonable and the provision constitutionally valid as incidental to a valid direct taxation scheme.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a business agreement to build and operate a wood-drying kiln.

The plaintiff advanced funds for construction, while the defendant contributed land.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and conversion, alleging the defendant lied about his experience, grossly overstated the land's value, failed to account for construction costs, and wrongfully transferred the business property to his own holding company.

The court found the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations and fundamentally breached the agreement.

The court granted rescission, ordering the defendant to pay restitution of the plaintiff's advanced funds, plus punitive damages for his atrocious conduct.

Claims against the real estate agent were dismissed, while the company's lawyer was found to have breached his duty by facilitating the wrongful property transfer.

Following an application concerning the seizure of cigarettes under the Tobacco Tax Act, the applicant succeeded on a Charter challenge under s. 8 and obtained a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter requiring the return of seized cigarettes or payment of their value.

However, the respondents succeeded on the statutory interpretation issues under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The court considered costs pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Exercising its discretion to allocate costs by issue, the court declined to award costs for the statutory issues and limited recovery to the Charter portion of the proceeding.

An all‑inclusive costs award of $50,000 was ordered.

A tobacco manufacturer sought declarations that a shipment of unmarked cigarettes seized by authorities under the Tobacco Tax Act was unlawfully seized and that it had a right to possess the tobacco.

The court found that the warrantless search and seizure of a delivery vehicle violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the detention and search occurred without reasonable and probable grounds and because the authorized official improperly directed police remotely.

Although the court held that the applicant’s operations demonstrated substantial non‑compliance with the Tobacco Tax Act and its permit conditions, the Charter breach justified a remedy.

The court ordered the return of the seized cigarettes belonging to the applicant or compensation for their value if they had deteriorated.