Guy E. McDannold

The appellant developer successfully sued the respondent municipality for unjust enrichment and was awarded $1.08 million.

After the Supreme Court restored the trial judgment, a dispute arose regarding post-judgment interest.

The appellant brought a motion for a re-hearing to clarify the judgment.

The Supreme Court dismissed the motion for a re-hearing, noting that section 50 of the Supreme Court Act conclusively addresses the issue, meaning interest at post-judgment rates accrues from the time of the trial judgment until paid.

The appellant developer agreed to construct $1.08 million in extra infrastructure improvements for the respondent municipality in exchange for an implied commitment to maintain zoning for a waterfront development.

After the developer completed the improvements, the municipality down-zoned the property, preventing the development.

The Supreme Court of Canada previously ruled the municipality's zoning commitment was ultra vires and unenforceable as a contract.

In this unjust enrichment claim, the Court held that the municipality could not rely on the ultra vires contract as a juristic reason to retain the benefit of the improvements without paying for them.

The appeal was allowed and the municipality was ordered to reimburse the developer $1.08 million.

The respondent company deposited a large pile of soil on its leased property, prompting complaints from neighbours about dust and noise.

The appellant municipality passed resolutions under s. 936 of the Municipal Act declaring the soil a nuisance and ordering its removal.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the jurisdiction to declare the soil a nuisance, interpreting the statute purposively.

The Court further held that while jurisdictional questions of municipalities are reviewed on a standard of correctness, their intra vires decisions are reviewed on a deferential standard of patent unreasonableness.

The municipality's decision was found not to be patently unreasonable.