3 total
Stay of mortgage possession order granted temporarily to protect children from imminent eviction.
The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action that required them to vacate their residential home.
The responding party had obtained a writ of possession after the moving parties defaulted on a loan of $843,750.
Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the motion judge found the appeal had little merit and the moving parties had not identified a valid defence.
However, weighing the interests of justice, the court was concerned that immediate enforcement would cause serious harm to the moving parties' three children, including one child with autism.
A stay was granted until March 30, 2026 to permit an orderly transition, with no costs awarded given divided success.
The Court of Appeal upheld an award of restoration costs and aggravated damages for the conversion of a unique vintage Corvette.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Steve Konarski from a judgment holding him liable for conversion and detinue after he took and stripped a vintage Corvette belonging to the Kew estate.
The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to award damages on a restoration basis, rather than market value at the date of conversion, due to the unique and sentimental value of the vehicle.
The court also upheld aggravated damages for the estate’s emotional harm and rejected arguments that the damages were disproportionate or contrary to public policy.
Divisional Court restores public health order limiting migrant farm workers to three per bunkhouse during quarantine.
The Medical Officer of Health for Haldimand-Norfolk appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck down a requirement limiting the number of migrant farm workers to three per bunkhouse during their mandatory 14-day COVID-19 self-isolation period.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB erred in law by applying too high a standard of proof, failing to consider that the directive was a class order, and incorrectly concluding that the three-person limit was arbitrary.
The court restored the original order, emphasizing the precautionary principle and the vulnerability of migrant farm workers.