Jarvis K. Postnikoff

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that the respondents had an ancillary right to park vehicles along a right-of-way and awarding damages for nuisance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that parking was an ancillary right based on over forty years of use and the circumstances surrounding the creation of the right-of-way.

The Court also upheld the nuisance damage award.

However, the Court varied the judgment regarding the cost of installing a holding tank, ordering the parties to split the cost equally due to mutual carelessness.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant's former solicitor obtained a charging order under the Solicitors Act against all sums receivable by the appellant under a divorce judgment, including spousal support arrears, for unpaid legal fees.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that as a matter of law and public policy, charging orders should not be made against spousal support payments, as support is distinct from property and is intended to address demonstrable need.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer implemented a significant wage increase two days before a representation vote and made threats regarding unionization.

The Board found that the wage increase, even if decided earlier, was implemented to influence the vote, violating sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act.

The unilateral wage increase also violated the statutory freeze under section 86(2).

Consequently, the Board ordered a second representation vote under section 11, determining that the voting constituency must be based on the original application date to prevent the employer from benefiting from its unlawful conduct.