Mr. Davidson

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused seven variances to permit the construction of a new three-storey detached dwelling.

The applicant alleged that the presiding Member violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact, including by providing insufficient reasons, manufacturing evidence, and incorrectly applying policies related to laneway suites and infill development.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding that the Member provided sufficient reasons, properly considered the context of the application, and made no errors of law or fact that would warrant cancelling the decision.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances required to build a new three-storey house on a newly severed laneway lot.

The key variance sought was an increase in Floor Space Index from the permitted 1.0 to 1.87.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed density and massing did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, failed to meet the Official Plan's material consistency test, and did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding laneway housing.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, LoyaltyOne, Co. and its Monitor sought a declaration that a Tax Matters Agreement (TMA) was not binding or was void as a transfer at undervalue (TUV), and sought to disclaim the TMA to secure a $96 million tax refund.

Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (formerly ADS) cross-moved to set aside the disclaimer, asserting its entitlement to the refund under the TMA.

The court ruled that LoyaltyOne was bound by the TMA, the TMA was not void as a TUV, and the disclaimer was not approved.

The court found it premature to determine the specific nature of Bread's rights to the refund.

In a patent infringement action between hockey equipment manufacturers, the parties brought cross-motions to exclude various expert reports.

The Court dismissed the defendant's motion to exclude a report under Rule 248, finding the expert relied on disclosed documents.

The Court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's expert reply report on reasonable royalty as improper reply.

The Court exercised its discretion to admit another expert reply report on accounting for profits.

The plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendant's responding and reply reports was dismissed.

The respondents held a non-discretionary investment account with the appellants.

The appellant investment advisor made an unauthorized sale of the respondents' shares.

The trial judge found a fiduciary relationship existed, that the advisor breached his fiduciary duty, and awarded damages based on a lengthy mitigation period, along with solicitor and client costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the relationship was contractual, not fiduciary, because the account was non-discretionary and the clients retained control.

The Court found the unauthorized sale was a breach of contract, not ratified by the clients, but that the clients had a duty to mitigate their losses within a brief reasonable period.

Because the share price dropped during that brief period, the clients suffered no loss in share value and were only entitled to recover transaction costs.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the trial costs award was set aside.