4 total
Consent order creating restrictive covenant struck from title for exceeding court's jurisdiction and failing equity requirements.
The applicants brought an application and cross-application to strike a 1991 consent order from the parcel register of their lands.
The consent order purported to create a restrictive covenant preventing the storage of derelict vehicles and materials, binding the original defendants and their successors in title.
The court held that the original consent order was invalid because a court order cannot bind non-parties (successors in title) based solely on the agreement of the parties.
Furthermore, the restrictive covenant failed to adequately identify the dominant tenement.
The court also found that even if valid, the covenant should be discharged under s. 61 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act because a subsequent municipal property standards by-law rendered it redundant.
The order was struck from the register.
Board of Inquiry lacks jurisdiction where Commission fails to fulfill statutory duty to attempt settlement.
The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.
The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.
The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.
The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.
Motion for pre-hearing disclosure of human rights investigation and conciliation records dismissed as privileged and premature.
The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.
The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.
Applicants granted amicus curiae intervener status to make submissions in sex discrimination inquiry.
In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.
The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.
However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.
