Christopher Robertson

The applicants, who lease advertising signs, challenged a municipal by-law amendment that eliminated off-premise portable signs.

They argued the amendment infringed their freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, was ultra vires, and was tainted by bias.

The court found that while the by-law infringed s. 2(b), it was a reasonable limit saved by s. 1, as it addressed pressing aesthetic and traffic safety concerns.

The court also dismissed the ultra vires and bias claims, finding the municipality acted in good faith and within its statutory authority.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants owned vacant land in the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen and placed a recreational motor home on their property.

The Township sought a declaration that this was a non-permitted use under its Comprehensive Zoning By-Law and an injunction prohibiting the placement of any vehicle for human habitation.

The application judge granted the Township's application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in interpreting the by-law to include recreational motor homes, which were not expressly prohibited.

The court also found that providing electrical power to the motor home was insufficient evidence of intended habitation without actual habitation, and that the injunction was overly broad as it prohibited all vehicles, including cars.

The plaintiffs, family members of a deceased correctional officer, brought an action against the employer under the Family Law Act.

After the action was set down for trial, the defendant moved for leave to amend its statement of defence to argue the claims were barred by the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and for leave to bring a summary judgment motion.

The court partially granted the motion to amend, allowing references to the Family Law Act and Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, but refused amendments relying on the collective agreement, finding the essential character of the claims did not fall within its scope.

The motion for leave to bring summary judgment was dismissed.