Guy A. Wainwright

The appellant, Lynn Larabie, as executrix of her parents' estate, appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her application to quash a zoning by-law passed by the Township of Moonbeam.

The by-law rezoned an adjacent property to permit expansion.

The appellant argued the Township failed to provide proper statutory notice under the Planning Act and regulations, and acted in bad faith.

The application judge found the by-law procedurally illegal due to notice failures but exercised discretion not to quash it, finding no bad faith and negligible broader consequences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in the bad faith analysis or the exercise of discretion not to quash the by-law, despite the procedural illegality.

The applicants brought a motion under Rule 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requesting a trial of issues arising from the estate of the deceased.

The court directed a trial on the single issue of the validity of the deceased's will dated May 16, 1994, noting that resolving this issue would likely resolve all other issues or determine if further proceedings are necessary.

The court ordered the affidavits to form the pleadings and permitted cross-examinations.

No costs were awarded as success was split.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's dismissal of her application for retroactive spousal support covering a four and a half year period from June 30, 2010 to December 31, 2014.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by not accounting for time spent in mediation when considering delay, by failing to address compensatory support, and by not providing reasons for departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the exercise of discretion regarding retroactive support, which carries no presumptive right.

In a bifurcated trial of a matrimonial dispute, the court was asked to determine the valuation date.

The respondent argued the parties separated in August 2006 after his extra-marital affair, while the applicant argued they separated on October 31, 2010.

Applying the Oswell factors for living separate and apart under the same roof, the court found that the parties continued to function as a family, maintained joint financial arrangements, and did not take steps consistent with a final separation until 2010.

The court concluded the valuation date was October 31, 2010.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the respondent father brought a contempt motion alleging the mother failed to comply with an interim access order and sought additional interim relief including summer parenting time.

The court held that contempt requires strict compliance with procedural requirements, including specific allegations tied to an existing order.

Because the alleged breach related to informal arrangements rather than the precise terms of the operative order, the contempt motion was dismissed.

The court nevertheless addressed interim parenting issues, directing that the mother provide a schedule allowing three weeks of summer access and confirming that regular alternating weekend access would resume after the summer.

Other requested relief was adjourned.

Following a six‑day construction contract trial where the plaintiff contractor obtained damages for breach of contract, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs significantly higher than the amount the defendant argued was reasonable.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and established appellate guidance on reasonableness and proportionality, the court reviewed counsel’s hourly rate, time spent, success at trial, litigation conduct, and challenged disbursements.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful but reduced certain claimed rates and disbursements, including photocopying and unexplained charges.

A fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs award was fixed accordingly.

The plaintiff general contractor brought an action for breach of contract against the defendant subcontractor after the defendant abandoned a hospital construction project.

The court found that the subcontracts incorporated standard construction terms by reference and included both the hospital addition and kitchen renovations.

The court held that the defendant was not entitled to abandon the project and was in breach of contract.

The plaintiff was awarded $372,829.61 in damages for the reasonable costs incurred to complete the defendant's unfinished work.