Dylan Skylar Fisher

The applicants, who purchased a residential property, sought declaratory relief against the City of Cambridge after the City denied municipal services, asserting the property's transfer violated the Planning Act due to a 1950 by-law.

This by-law deemed the original plan of subdivision not to be a registered plan for subdivision control purposes and was registered in the Registry office but not noted on the Land Titles parcel register after conversion.

The court found that the applicants were entitled to rely on the Land Titles register's "mirror" and "curtain" principles, as the 1950 by-law directly affected title and thus constituted an encumbrance requiring registration on the Land Titles register to be effective against bona fide purchasers without actual notice.

Furthermore, the by-law, as a "claim" under the Registry Act, had expired due to the City's failure to register a notice of claim within the statutory period.

The City's "floodgates" argument was rejected.

The application for declaratory relief was granted, affirming the validity of the applicants' title and transfer.

The applicant husband brought a motion for an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 12 of the Family Law Act to preserve the assets of several respondent corporations pending trial.

The applicant claimed legal and beneficial ownership of the corporations, which held a substantial real estate portfolio and private mortgage fund, while the respondent wife claimed her mother owned them.

The court found the applicant established a strong prima facie case of ownership and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the unique corporate assets.

The court granted the preservation order for the corporate assets but declined to order preservation for specific residential properties under the Family Law Act.

The appellant insurer appealed a lower court decision that found it had a continuing duty to defend the respondent insured in an underlying action.

The insured had purchased property with title insurance and was subsequently sued by a previous owner claiming invalid sale and unjust enrichment.

Although the insured later lost title to the property, the application judge found the amended statement of claim included a claim for damages against the insured, triggering the insurer's duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming that the amended statement of claim could reasonably be read to include a claim for damages against the insured, thus upholding the duty to defend.

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding that the respondents, Hanna Gajek and Katarzyna Krol, failed to comply with two prior court orders requiring disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the late Marek Krol's estate.

The court found that Katarzyna Krol had satisfied her disclosure obligations to the best of her ability, as she had no knowledge or possession of relevant documents.

However, the court found that Hanna Gajek had not fully complied with the orders, particularly regarding documents likely kept in a safe and details of joint bank accounts.

The motion was dismissed against Katarzyna Krol and allowed in part against the Estate of Hanna Gajek, with directions for further disclosure.

The plaintiff, Orpheus Medica Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain former employees and their new company, Deep Biologics Inc., from using a government grant and competing in the development of a COVID-19 rapid diagnostic test.

The plaintiff alleged breach of restrictive covenants, misappropriation of confidential information, and breach of fiduciary and employment duties.

The court applied the strong prima facie case standard because the injunction would effectively be a final determination and restrain competition.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, noting credibility issues with the plaintiff's evidence regarding employment agreements and a lack of evidence of misappropriation.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants, particularly given the public interest in developing COVID-19 testing.

The appellant appealed his sentence of five years' imprisonment for possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana and fentanyl.

The drugs were intended to be smuggled into a penal institution where the appellant was already incarcerated for prior trafficking convictions.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's conclusion, holding that the sentence was well within the appropriate range, and dismissed the appeal.