2 total
Municipal councillors are not disqualified for bias due to prior support of a project unless their minds are completely closed.
The appellant residents association challenged a municipal rezoning that permitted a condominium development, arguing that a municipal councillor who had previously supported the development was disqualified by a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the strict test for reasonable apprehension of bias does not apply to municipal councillors acting in their legislative capacity, unless they have a personal interest.
A councillor is only disqualified for prejudgment if their mind is so closed that any representations would be futile.
The Court also found that the rezoning application complied with statutory requirements and conformed to the city's development plan.
The appeal was dismissed.
Mareva injunctions are generally inappropriate to prevent a federal corporation from transferring assets between Canadian provinces.
The appellant, a federally incorporated company, sought to transfer assets from Manitoba to its offices in Quebec or Ontario.
The respondents, who had an unliquidated damages claim against the appellant, obtained an interlocutory Mareva injunction restraining the transfer.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, holding that while superior courts have jurisdiction to issue Mareva injunctions, they are inappropriate where a resident defendant is rightfully removing assets to another part of the Canadian federal system in the ordinary course of business, absent a genuine risk of asset disappearance to avoid judgment.
