G. Sheppard

The defendants were charged with zoning by-law infractions for storing cargo containers and operating a public storage facility on their properties.

The court found that the cargo containers were actively used for storage and therefore did not fall under the by-law's prohibition against 'disused' containers.

Furthermore, the defendants successfully established on a balance of probabilities that their operation of a public storage facility qualified as a legal non-conforming use, having been in continuous operation since before the relevant by-law amendments.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss charges for alleged violations of Town of Fort Erie By-Law 129-90 regarding the use of a public storage facility and cargo containers on their properties.

The defendants argued that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process because similar charges had been brought against them on multiple prior occasions that were resolved in their favour, and that the Town was therefore estopped from continuing the prosecution.

The court rejected the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or vexatiousness on the part of the Town.

The court held that a prior dismissal in 2013 did not preclude the municipality from ongoing enforcement of zoning by-law violations, and that the defence of legal non-conforming use remained a matter for adjudication at trial.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a claim alleging knowing assistance in a departing lawyer's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, trust, good faith, and loyalty arising from the transfer of client files to a competing firm.

Applying the knowing assistance framework and the summary judgment principles under Rule 20.04, the court held there was no evidence that the moving parties had actual knowledge of, or were wilfully blind to, any dishonest and fraudulent breach of trust.

The evidentiary record showed the moving party cautioned the departing lawyer to comply with professional obligations and that the respondent failed to challenge that evidence.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the moving parties.

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs of approximately $194,144.88.

The court found that the materials provided were insufficient to justify the amount sought and appeared to include costs related to other actions that had been settled before trial.

Because the record lacked sufficient information to assess the requested amount, the court declined to determine a specific figure.

Costs of the wrongful dismissal claim were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, with the amount to be assessed pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

A municipal administrator brought an action for wrongful dismissal alleging he had been hired under a three‑year fixed‑term contract as CAO/Clerk of a municipality.

The municipality asserted that the appointment was temporary and that services were provided through the plaintiff’s consulting company on an interim basis while a permanent replacement was sought.

The court rejected the authenticity and reliability of an alleged email exchange said to form a fixed‑term employment contract and found that the municipal by‑laws and surrounding evidence demonstrated a temporary acting appointment.

The court further concluded the services were provided through the plaintiff’s corporation as an independent contractor arrangement.

As the temporary engagement ended when the municipality appointed a permanent replacement, no notice or damages were owed.

The municipal defendant brought a motion seeking several forms of relief including orders compelling compliance with a prior disclosure order, production of medical and tax records, responses to undertakings and refusals, and leave to amend its defence to plead a notice limitation under the Libel and Slander Act.

The court granted leave to bring the motion and resolved most disclosure disputes through undertakings or by deeming earlier orders satisfied.

The request for production of medical records was refused because the parties had previously agreed that such disclosure would not be required after the plaintiff withdrew health-related damages claims.

However, the court granted leave to amend the defence to plead the statutory notice limitation, finding no compensable prejudice to the plaintiff despite the late stage of the litigation.

A roofing contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment of holdback funds and alleged extras following completion of a roofing installation project.

The property owner asserted a set‑off for the contractor’s failure to provide the expected system warranty and disputed responsibility for additional invoices.

The court interpreted the contract to require a system warranty covering labour and materials, not merely a material warranty, and held the owner was entitled to compensation for the missing warranty though less than claimed.

The contractor was also found responsible for damage caused by improper installation practices that allowed rainwater to enter through unsealed screw holes during construction.

Judgment was granted in a reduced amount reflecting the set‑off and limited entitlement to extras.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging professional negligence by their real estate lawyer arising from a failed land development transaction.

After being warned by a previous lawyer about the risks of the deal, the plaintiffs proceeded with a closing handled by the defendant solicitor and later suffered financial losses when the purchaser defaulted and the property was lost through power of sale.

The plaintiffs argued the solicitor failed to meet the required standard of care in structuring the transfer and protecting their interest under a joint venture arrangement.

The court held that expert evidence was required to establish the applicable standard of care in the context of a complex real estate transaction.

In the absence of such evidence, and given that the solicitor followed the client’s instructions and cautioned the client about the risks, negligence was not proven.