Donald R. Good

The appellant appealed a conviction involving a forged endorsement on a cheque.

The central issue was whether the named payee was a non-existent entity or merely a misdescription.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of fact that it was a misdescription, meaning the cheque was not payable to bearer under the Bills of Exchange Act.

Consequently, the forged endorsement was a material addition to a genuine document, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sued the provincial Crown for environmental damage caused by waste asphalt buried on their farm during highway reconstruction in the 1960s.

The respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the disposal of waste asphalt on private land was an operational decision of a predominantly private character, not an act done in pursuance of a public duty.

Therefore, the usual six-year limitation period applied, and the action was not statute-barred.

Neighbouring property owners sued mushroom farmers in nuisance for severe odours from composting operations and obtained damages at trial.

On appeal, the court held that the Superior Court retained jurisdiction to determine whether the statutory immunity for a normal farm practice applied, but that absent special circumstances such questions should generally be left first to the specialized board.

The majority held that the statutory definition of normal farm practice contains a qualitative and site-specific evaluative element, permitting consideration of the intensity of the disturbance and the surrounding circumstances, including the prior character of the area.

The appeal was dismissed and the nuisance damages award was upheld.