Daniel James Wyjad

The applicant brought a motion seeking relief from an earlier court order permitting the municipality to demolish a building if the applicant failed to complete construction by a specified deadline.

The prior order required the building to be ready for final occupancy by August 30, 2012, failing which a stay of demolition would be lifted.

The court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the deadline and had a long history of delays and missed construction timelines despite multiple court-managed extensions.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, the court held that the prior order should not be revisited.

The motion was dismissed and the earlier demolition-related order was upheld.

Costs decision following a motion in an estates dispute concerning an objection to an application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee.

The responding party had been successful on the underlying motion and sought full indemnity costs.

The court considered the applicants’ earlier offer to withdraw the objection without costs and the proportionality of the costs claimed relative to the overall litigation.

Finding that the issues argued on the motion were limited largely to costs and that the respondent’s claimed motion costs were disproportionate, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants partial costs of the motion.

In an estate dispute involving a notice of objection to probate and related litigation steps, the respondents brought a motion seeking various relief including costs.

The litigation stalled after earlier directions orders requiring documentary production, potential discovery, and appointment of an estate trustee during litigation, none of which were meaningfully completed.

The applicants later attempted to withdraw the matter without costs after concluding the litigation was not economically viable.

The court held that the respondents were the successful party but limited their recoverable costs to the period prior to the applicants’ offer to withdraw without costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction reflecting both parties’ conduct and failure to efficiently advance the litigation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for possessory title over a family cottage property and sought an increase in an $18,000 unjust enrichment award for improvements made to the land.

The respondents cross-appealed the unjust enrichment award.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's parents occupied the property as licensees under a family arrangement, not as tenants at will, meaning the limitation period under s. 5(7) of the Real Property Limitations Act was never triggered.

The Court upheld the unjust enrichment award, finding the application judge reasonably assessed the value of the improvements.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order closing an access road across the respondents' commercial lodge property, which the appellants had used to access their cottage since 1982 without a legal right.

The applications judge found the road was an 'access road' under the Road Access Act, the appellants had no legal right to use it, and exercised his residual discretion to grant a closing order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the conditions for granting a closing order under s. 3(1) of the Act are disjunctive, not conjunctive, and that the applications judge properly balanced the parties' competing interests and the public interest.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

Although the appellants had an arguable defence on the merits, the motion judge found their explanation for the default unsatisfactory, as they had deliberately ignored the statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that disputed lands had been dedicated and accepted for public uses as a park.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding public use.

Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent Township had established title to the lands through adverse possession, as it had erected a fence in 1990 with the intention of excluding the appellant and had maintained actual possession since that time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent father obtained an order reducing his child support arrears to zero after a trial at which the appellant mother did not appear.

The mother appealed, arguing she lacked notice of the trial and that the order resulted in her being charged with welfare fraud and required to repay over $111,000 in social assistance.

The Court of Appeal set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new trial, finding that the interests of justice required a hearing on the merits given the severe consequences to the mother and the lack of evidence disputing her claim that she was not notified of the hearing.