Dillon Shields

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a boundary fence dispute, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the matter should have been addressed under the Line Fences Act.

The Divisional Court noted that the City of Toronto had opted out of the Line Fences Act, meaning the statutory cost apportionment scheme no longer applied.

Because the trial judge appeared to rely on the principles of the Line Fences Act without identifying an alternative legal cause of action, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and remitted the matter for a new trial with directions to amend the pleadings.

The plaintiff challenged the 2016 will of his deceased sister, which left her entire estate to her stepson (the defendant) and transferred her home into joint tenancy with him.

The plaintiff argued the deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to cognitive decline and delusions, and was unduly influenced by the defendant.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of $247,322.95 that the deceased had transferred to the plaintiff and another sibling in 2014, alleging it was taken without her knowledge.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the deceased had the requisite capacity to execute the 2016 will and property transfer, relying on the assessments of her treating physician and a geriatric specialist.

The court also found no evidence of undue influence.

The counterclaim was dismissed as the court found it unnecessary to determine the exact reasons for the 2014 transfer, concluding it did not need to be undone.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a boundary fence dispute.

The appellant argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Line Fences Act governed such disputes.

The Divisional Court noted that while the City of Toronto purported to opt out of the Line Fences Act, its bylaw did not establish an alternative scheme for apportioning costs as required by the Act.

The court adjourned the matter and directed that notice be given to the City of Toronto to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of its opt-out bylaw.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant owner for unpaid renovation work on a commercial condominium unit.

The parties disputed seven claims for extra work and a 10% discount clause for delay inserted by the owner.

The court found that the extra work was outside the scope of the contract and implicitly authorized, awarding the plaintiff $5,755.09 for the extras.

The court also held that the 10% discount clause was an unenforceable penalty, as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of damages, and dismissed the owner's claim for delay damages.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $12,535.09.