Heidi LeBlanc

The applicants, former members of the respondent church, sought to declare the termination of their membership null and void, arguing the church failed to follow its by-laws and denied them natural justice by not holding an oral hearing.

The court found that the church's decision-making body was properly constituted and had sufficiently investigated the applicants' disruptive conduct.

The court held that natural justice in this context did not require an oral hearing, and the applicants were given an adequate opportunity to respond to the case against them.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This case involves two consolidated applications concerning the estate of Veronica Bishop.

Carolyn Mae Reeves sought interpretation of the will regarding executor appointments and asset vesting, and an accounting from Anne Marie Veronica Inglis, a de facto executor.

Margaret Bishop, the deceased's daughter, sought dependant's relief, an accounting, and the removal of Anne Marie as executor.

The court determined that Anne Marie and Carolyn are the current executors.

It clarified that non-residence assets vested at the deceased's death, while residence proceeds vested upon sale.

The court ordered Anne Marie to provide a formal accounting.

Margaret was found to be a dependant and awarded $725,000 from her trust, inclusive of her share of the residue and dependant's support, subject to Anne Marie's proven expenses.

The decision on Anne Marie's removal as executor was adjourned pending the accounting.

The applicant, a not-for-profit corporation, sought declarations validating the election of its board of directors and the subsequent removal of two former directors.

The respondent former directors challenged their removal, arguing that the board's temporary retirement at the annual general meeting left the corporation without members to re-elect them, and that they were denied procedural fairness.

The court rejected the respondents' literal interpretation of the by-laws to avoid commercial absurdity, finding the board was properly elected.

The court also held that the respondents received adequate notice and were not denied natural justice.

The applicant's application was granted.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' request to remove a boundary tree, the successful respondents sought costs.

The respondents had made an offer to settle prior to the hearing, which the applicants did not accept.

The court awarded the respondents costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter.

The court found the respondents' counsel's hourly rates and staffing choices reasonable, fixing total costs at $77,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought an order authorizing the removal of a mature boundary tree shared with the respondents to facilitate a home extension.

The applicants argued the tree constituted a nuisance because its protection zone prevented their proposed construction.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tree did not interfere with the applicants' current use and enjoyment of their property, but only with their desired enhancement.

The applicants failed to demonstrate that the tree was a substantial and unreasonable interference or that there were no reasonable alternative designs for their renovation.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against her former employer, claiming wrongful dismissal and breach of her employment contract.

The core issue was whether her contract automatically renewed for an additional year because the employer failed to provide a 30-day notice of non-renewal prior to the end of the initial three-year term.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, interpreting the contract to mean it had automatically renewed.

The court awarded the plaintiff her base salary and performance bonus for the remainder of the initial term plus the one-year renewal period, but denied her claims for health insurance stipends and office expenses.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against an individual respondent on a Rule 21 motion.

The appellant was employed by the corporate respondent and alleged his employment was wrongfully terminated as reprisal for a workplace injury claim.

The motion judge struck the claim against the individual respondent, finding insufficient pleading of grounds to establish personal liability outside the scope of corporate duties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that while tortious conduct allegations may form the basis for personal liability against officers or directors, such claims must be specifically and adequately pleaded with clarity and precision.

Bald or vague assertions of intentional tortious conduct are insufficient to defeat a Rule 21 motion.