Dr. Richard Clark

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to recognize a retaining wall within a shoreline buffer and conditionally approving a variance for a floating dock.

The Tribunal found that the retaining wall functioned as a permitted flood and erosion control facility rather than a hard landscaping amenity.

The Tribunal authorized both variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions reducing the retaining wall's height and implementing a landscape plan.

The applicant appealed the Town of Huntsville's decision regarding a Community Planning Permit application to recognize existing non-complying structures and to permit the construction of a boat launch and access path.

The Town had provisionally approved the existing structures subject to conditions requiring the removal of a deck and obtaining building permits, but denied the boat launch proposal due to concerns about environmental impacts on a wetland and fish habitat.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting final approval to recognize the existing structures without the Town's conditions, finding them unnecessary and inappropriate.

The Tribunal also granted provisional approval for the boat launch, subject to conditions including the completion of an Environmental Impact Study and obtaining necessary approvals from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The minority shareholders of Ford Canada dissented from a squeeze-out transaction and sought fair value for their shares, along with an oppression remedy against Ford Canada and Ford U.S. regarding a transfer pricing system that caused the Canadian subsidiary to lose money over a ten-year period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the transfer pricing system was oppressive and that the business judgment rule did not protect the directors.

However, the Court reversed the dismissal of the oppression claim against Ford U.S., finding that the parent company's actions were oppressive.

The Court also held that minority shareholders were not entitled to compensation for historical oppression that occurred before they acquired their shares, and that fair value does not include a component for historical oppression.

The trial judge's order directing a reference to a Master to determine shareholdings was set aside.