Daniel W. Veinot

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $2,915.40 to the respondent roofing company for partial roof repairs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge was biased against him, erred in admitting certain photographs, and made incorrect factual findings regarding the cause of a roof leak.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that the appellant had chosen to only partially repair a roof that was in a deplorable condition.

Following the settlement of a construction dispute for $58,000, the plaintiffs sought costs and prejudgment interest.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' bill of costs, noting the settlement was slightly more favourable than their pre-trial offer.

Applying the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded the plaintiffs $48,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount to account for work related to a failed arbitration and proportionality to the settlement.

Prejudgment interest was also awarded at a rate of 4.8%, totaling $23,156.78.

The applicant, a corporate landlord, sought judicial review to quash the City of Waterloo's Residential Rental Housing Licensing By-law.

The applicant argued the licensing fees constituted an ultra vires indirect tax and that the by-law's application to townhouses but not apartment buildings constructively discriminated against families contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the fees were validly enacted to fund the licensing program and did not constitute a tax.

The Court also held the by-law did not discriminate on the basis of family status, as it targeted specific types of dwellings rather than any protected group.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a municipal resolution and for an injunction restraining the municipality from erecting a barrier restricting access to the rear of their property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied because the appellants had previously sought and been denied an injunction to remove the barrier in 2009.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant municipality appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a remedial order issued against the respondent property owner for violating a property standards by-law regarding external lighting.

The appeal judge had found the order overly broad and the by-law impermissibly retrospective.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the by-law was prospective in requiring future compliance and clearly intended to affect vested rights.

The Court also found the remedial order was not overly broad, though it amended the wording slightly to conform to the by-law by adding the word 'likely'.

The remedial order was reinstated as amended.

The parties separated shortly after the respondent's employment was terminated.

He received a severance package that included common law damages and Employment Standards Act (ESA) severance.

The trial judge held that the ESA severance portion had fully accrued before the marriage and was therefore property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal on this issue, holding that an employee has no right or entitlement to ESA severance until their employment is terminated without notice.

Therefore, the uncrystallized ESA severance was not property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The appeal was dismissed on all other grounds relating to business valuation, household items, and imputed income.

The defendants pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to building a deck and hot tub without obtaining a building permit, in violation of the Building Code Act and City of Waterloo by-laws.

They failed to comply with orders to obtain a permit, remove the structures, and cease occupancy.

The court imposed a balanced sentencing package including a suspended sentence with one-year probation on the first count and fines of $500 on each of three counts for failure to comply with orders.

One count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The appellants sought access to the back of their property across a grassy strip of city-owned land bordering a cul-de-sac.

The city council denied the request.

The application judge ruled the appellants had no right of access but found the city's process was tainted by bad faith and ordered a new hearing.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the grassy strip was not part of the public road, dismissing the appellants' appeal.

The Court allowed the city's cross-appeal, finding the application judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly applied adjudicative procedural fairness standards to an elected municipal council.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding of contempt, a six-month custodial sentence, and an order striking his variation proceedings.

The contempt arose from the appellant's blatant and concerted attempts to hide his RRSPs to avoid paying spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the contempt finding and concluding the sentence was fair given the appellant's refusal to purge his contempt.

The appellant moved to extend the time to perfect its appeal.

The court found that while there was substantial delay, it was attributable to the appellant's previous solicitor and not the appellant itself, who maintained a bona fide intention to proceed.

The respondent did not allege specific prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the time to perfect the appeal, with costs of the motion awarded to the respondent.

The appellant City of Waterloo appealed a trial decision finding that a competing bidder, Xterra, failed to comply with the material terms of a municipal tender.

The trial judge concluded that the requirement to submit a bid including only the base bid was a material term, and that Xterra's failure to follow this instruction constituted non-compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision involved a mixed question of fact and law, and rejected the appellant's argument that the standard of review was correctness.