Dan Duke

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the demolition of an existing legal non-conforming dwelling and the construction of a new, slightly larger dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which included a modest footprint increase and improved accessibility, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

Relying on expert engineering evidence, the Tribunal also determined that the municipality had relied on erroneous floodplain calculations, and that the new dwelling would be safely located above the critical flood level.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The plaintiff discovered significant structural defects and Building Code violations in his cottage years after purchasing it, rendering it unsafe to occupy.

He claimed coverage under his title insurance policy with the defendant.

The court, applying the Court of Appeal's framework in MacDonald v. Chicago Title, found that the structural defects flowed directly from the inadequacy of the building permit and inspection process, rendering the title unmarketable.

The court held that the loss fell within the covered title risks and was not caught by the policy's exclusions for governmental power or actual knowledge.

Partial judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of coverage, with damages bifurcated to a subsequent trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking relief from an earlier court order permitting the municipality to demolish a building if the applicant failed to complete construction by a specified deadline.

The prior order required the building to be ready for final occupancy by August 30, 2012, failing which a stay of demolition would be lifted.

The court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the deadline and had a long history of delays and missed construction timelines despite multiple court-managed extensions.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, the court held that the prior order should not be revisited.

The motion was dismissed and the earlier demolition-related order was upheld.