5 total
Motion for leave to appeal interim adjudicator determination dismissed without prejudice to future judicial review.
The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim determination made by an adjudicator.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without prejudice to either party seeking leave for judicial review once a final determination is made.
The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.
Engineer suspended for five months and fined after unpermitted concrete arch collapsed, causing a fatality.
The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct after directing an unlicensed employee to construct a concrete arch without a building permit, design drawings, or supervision.
The arch later collapsed onto a dump truck, resulting in a fatal accident.
The Member admitted to the facts and pleaded guilty to professional misconduct.
The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month license suspension, publication of the decision, a $5,000 fine, and $15,000 in costs.
Motion for leave to appeal a Master's costs order dismissed with costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by a Master.
The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The court awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.
Motion for leave to appeal from Master's order dismissed without costs.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of a Master.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Specific performance granted for condominium purchase after vendor improperly attempted to terminate agreement due to delays.
The applicants sought to enforce an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit.
The respondent attempted to terminate the agreement due to construction delays and changes to the floor plan, offering to sell the unit back to the applicants at a higher price.
The court found that the respondent had no unilateral right to terminate the agreement and that the contract was not frustrated.
The court granted specific performance, finding the property unique and the respondent's conduct unjustified.