Donald G. Kidd

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture of elected municipal office after failing to file an audited campaign financial statement as required by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The failure arose from an accounting error that caused the applicant to mistakenly believe an audit was not required.

The court considered its equitable jurisdiction under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and applied the relief-from-forfeiture test focusing on the applicant’s conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the proportionality between the breach and the forfeiture.

The court found the breach technical and inadvertent, that the applicant acted in good faith, and that no prejudice resulted.

Relief from forfeiture was granted, allowing the applicant to retain the elected office.

The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.

The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.

The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.

The plaintiffs, former employees of GMA Cover Corp., were summarily terminated without notice or compensation following a complex corporate reorganization.

They brought an action claiming the various corporate defendants were common employers and moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the sale or encumbrance of the defendants' only remaining asset in Ontario, a property in Guelph.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case on the merits of the common employer claim and satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction, inferring an intent by the defendants to frustrate the plaintiffs' claims.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.