4 total
Successful applicant awarded partial indemnity costs; Rule 49 substantial indemnity denied due to overbroad offer.
Following a successful application to declare a municipal by-law invalid, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.
The respondent argued each party should bear its own costs due to the public interest nature of the case.
The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding the public interest exception did not apply.
However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 because the applicant's offer contained terms beyond the scope of the litigation.
The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $74,006.60, adjusting the claimed rates to 60% of substantial indemnity rates.
Municipal wind turbine setback by-law struck down for vagueness and uncertainty.
The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law imposing a two‑kilometre setback for industrial wind turbines from any “property” as defined in the by-law.
The court held that the definition of “property,” which included property lines, vacant land, structures, and inhabitants “of all species,” rendered the by-law unintelligible and incapable of consistent interpretation.
Because the measuring point for the setback requirement was unclear, developers could not determine where turbines could legally be located.
The by-law was therefore invalid for vagueness and uncertainty.
The court further observed that, even if valid, the by-law could become inoperative where it conflicted with provincial renewable energy legislation and regulations.
Small Claims Court appeal dismissed; trial judge's finding of negligent tile installation was not clearly wrong.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him liable for $10,000 for the negligent installation of ceramic tiles in the respondent's home.
The appellant argued the trial judge made erroneous findings of fact regarding the visibility of floor joists and the cause of the cracking tiles.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding that the appellant breached his duty to discuss the adequacy of the floor joists with the homeowner was supported by the evidence and not clearly wrong.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's calculation of prejudgment interest on past loss of income upheld.
The appellants appealed the trial judge's calculation of prejudgment interest on the respondent's past loss of income and the deduction of no-fault benefits following a jury verdict.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's determination that past loss of income began to accrue immediately following the accident, and upheld her treatment of the no-fault benefits deduction.
The appeal was dismissed.
