Peter Barton

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a second-storey addition to an interior townhouse unit.

The requested variances included a 0-metre interior side yard setback, reduced minimum floor area, and increased maximum lot coverage.

The Tribunal found that while the variances maintained the general intent of the Official Plan, they failed the remaining three tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, the 0-metre side yard setback would create negative impacts on neighbouring properties regarding sunlight, drainage, and access, and was not compatible with the existing built form.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant, B.C.R. Construction Incorporated, appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondent damages for breach of a real estate contract and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim regarding restrictive covenants.

The trial judge had found a binding agreement of purchase and sale, awarded damages for the cost differential and relocation of a house, and granted $100,000 in costs to the respondent due to the complexity of the dismissed counterclaim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings, legal conclusions, or costs award.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The respondent had alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fuel-saving device but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsupported pleadings and misapprehending when the limitation period commenced.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the counterclaim.