Derek M. Sinko

The appellants appealed the County of Brant's refusal of a minor variance application for an already-constructed detached garage.

The variances sought reductions to the rear and interior side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal heard unchallenged expert planning evidence that the variances, subject to conditions addressing drainage and grading, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on summary judgment, the defendants sought full indemnity costs against the plaintiff and its principal personally.

The court found that the plaintiff's principal had fabricated an agreement of purchase and sale to support the claim, constituting an abuse of process.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants and held the principal jointly and severally liable for the costs due to his fraudulent conduct.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking a pre-trial determination that the termination provision in her employment agreement was unenforceable.

The defendant employer opposed the motion, arguing it was an inappropriate use of the rule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the termination provision was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

Furthermore, the court held that deciding the issue would not dispose of the action, substantially shorten the trial, or save costs, especially since the primary issue was whether the employer had just cause for termination.

The applicant Estate Trustees sought the court's opinion and advice on interpreting a clause in the testator's will that granted one of her sons an option to purchase her 'farming business' for a fixed price.

The son argued that the testator's rental of the farm property to him constituted carrying on the farming business.

Applying the armchair rule, the court found that the testator intended the phrase to mean the active farming business she and her late husband had previously operated, not the passive rental of land.

As the testator was not carrying on the active farming business at her death, the option to purchase was declared ineffective and the farm property fell into the residue of the estate.

The appellant obtained a British Columbia judgment against the respondent, which was registered in Ontario.

The appellant delayed enforcing the judgment for over six years because he believed there was little equity in the respondent's properties.

When the appellant sought leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale, the motion judge dismissed the motion, inferring that the appellant had waived his rights and that the respondent had detrimentally relied on the delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The appellant's explanation for the delay was plausible, and the respondent could not have reasonably believed the appellant waived his right to enforce the $333,717.50 judgment, nor did she detrimentally rely on such a belief.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated January 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,195.

The plaintiff commercial tenant sued the defendant landlord and its principal for damages after the landlord refused to consent to a lease assignment to a prospective purchaser of the tenant's business.

The plaintiff alleged promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a sword to found a claim, the alleged misrepresentation was a future promise rather than a statement of fact, and there was no evidence of unlawful interference.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to transfer a related Small Claims Court action was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old radio broadcaster with 20 years of service, was terminated without cause by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking 30 months' notice, while the defendant argued for 18 months and alleged a failure to mitigate.

The court awarded a 21-month notice period, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify exceeding 24 months.

The court also found that the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff did not mitigate his damages, considering his age, specialized skills, and serious medical issues following termination.

The applicants, Darshan Atwal and Balwinder Kaur Atwal, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a counterclaim by Amandeep Singh Manu.

The counterclaim alleged that Balwinder Kaur Atwal owed Amandeep Singh Manu $225,000 for a pizza restaurant interest, which was to be paid by November 20, 2012.

Amandeep Singh Manu claimed a $100,000 payment from Darshan Atwal in 2014 was a partial payment, leaving a balance of $125,000.

The applicants argued the counterclaim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the counterclaim was indeed statute-barred as no action was commenced within the two-year limitation period, and the issue was severable from the main action.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the counterclaim.

The plaintiff, Stephen Deak, brought an action against GreenMantra Recycling Technologies Ltd. concerning the validity of an overtime averaging agreement and a termination clause in his employment contract.

The court found the overtime averaging agreement invalid under section 22 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, because it lacked an expiry date.

The court also found the termination clause unenforceable as it provided for a notice period less than the minimum prescribed by the ESA, thereby entitling the employee to statutory notice.

The defendants hired the plaintiff to construct a modular home.

A dispute arose, and the plaintiff registered a construction lien.

The defendants obtained an order vacating the lien upon posting security and subsequently brought a motion to have the security returned, arguing the lien was not perfected within the statutory timelines under the Construction Lien Act.

The court found that the contract was abandoned at the latest on December 2, 2017, and since the statement of claim was issued more than 90 days later, the lien expired.

The court ordered the return of the security to the defendants.