Christopher Lee

The appellants operated a wedding venue on their property without obtaining building permits or proper zoning.

The Township issued an Unsafe Order and subsequently Orders Prohibiting Occupancy under the Building Code Act, citing the lack of a building permit.

The appellants appealed the Orders Prohibiting Occupancy.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and rescinded the orders, finding that the absence of a building permit does not, on its own, constitute an 'unsafe' condition under s. 15.9(2) of the Act, and the Township committed a palpable and overriding error by using the orders for a collateral purpose.

The plaintiff's vehicle was stolen and he submitted a claim to his insurer.

The insurer initially declared the vehicle a total loss, prompting the plaintiff to purchase a replacement vehicle.

When the stolen vehicle was recovered weeks later, the insurer reversed its decision and elected to repair it, relying on section 8.6(6) of the OAP 1.

The court found that the insurer breached the insurance contract by failing to make its election to repair within the required seven days of the proof of loss.

The court also found the insurer breached its duty of good faith by misleading the plaintiff and failing to communicate promptly.

The plaintiff was awarded $22,894.31 in damages, representing the cash value of the vehicle at the time of loss less the salvage sale price, plus storage costs.