Jennifer Stirton

The appellant appealed the Town of Pelham's Housekeeping By-law, which updated and corrected the Town's Zoning By-law.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on all but one issue.

Based on uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settled revisions conformed with the Official Plan and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the revised by-law save for one provision regarding townhouse dwelling requirements, which was deferred to a future hearing.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a public inspection centre as a home industry on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement to allow the variance subject to conditions limiting the use to the inspection of fire trucks and prohibiting repairs.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding the satisfaction of conditions for the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The parties confirmed that two of the three conditions had been met, but the appellant had not provided a satisfactory Contingency Odour Management Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits to address the outstanding condition and directed the parties to agree on exchange dates for witness materials.

A case management conference was held to address outstanding conditions from an interim order approving an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The appellant had satisfied two of three conditions but requested a final 60-day extension to demonstrate compliance with the odour mitigation condition.

The Tribunal granted the extension and scheduled a further case management conference, noting that a hearing on the merits may be scheduled if the condition remains unsatisfied.

The appellant appealed the Town of Fort Erie Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application for a property.

The application sought variances for rear yard setback, flood elevation setback, and accessory structure height to permit the expansion of a detached dwelling and construction of an accessory building.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the Town reached a settlement, but a neighbouring property owners' association opposed it, requesting an additional condition to restrict the dwelling's use.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal rejected the association's proposed condition, finding it outside the intent of the Zoning By-law, and allowed the appeal subject only to the condition agreed upon by the appellant and the Town.

The plaintiff landlords sued the City of Windsor and its fire investigators for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution after being charged with operating non-compliant boarding, lodging, or rooming houses under the Fire Code.

The plaintiffs argued the investigators lacked reasonable grounds and were motivated by a desire to curb student housing.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the investigator had reasonable grounds to believe the properties were rooming houses based on the statutory definitions, and that he acted reasonably by seeking advice before laying charges.

The court also found no evidence of malice or oblique motive.

The Police Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff alleged negligent investigation regarding a fire incident, which led to his arrest and nine-month incarceration before his acquittal.

The court applied legal principles governing negligent police investigation and summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the police's standard of care or to demonstrate overwhelming evidence discrediting the police's primary witnesses.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The appellants purchased a house and later discovered structural problems.

They sued the vendors and others, and later sought to add the designers as defendants.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the designers as statute-barred, finding the appellants ought to have known of the dangerous defects earlier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, holding that the motion judge erred in law by ignoring uncontested sworn evidence from the appellants' former counsel regarding when the dangerous nature of the defects was discovered.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of negligence claims arising from a single‑vehicle accident at a rural intersection.

The plaintiffs alleged that the municipality’s reconstruction of the roadway created a dangerous condition, including an inadequate clear zone and steep embankment adjacent to the roadway.

The municipality relied on the statutory bar in s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing the accident occurred on an untravelled portion of the highway.

The court held that determining whether the clear zone and drainage ditch embankment constituted an untravelled portion of the highway required factual findings regarding reasonable foreseeability and road design standards.

Because these issues formed part of a broader factual matrix that could not be fully appreciated on the record, the municipality failed to meet the summary judgment test.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to add two further plaintiffs to the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the two-year limitation period had expired and that this was an attempt to add new parties rather than correct a misnomer.

The appeal was dismissed, though the court noted that the validity of an assignment agreement between the appellants and a third party remained undetermined.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to add party plaintiffs and granting the respondent's motion for partial summary judgment.

The motion judge dismissed the appellants' motion because they failed to file a confirmation form and did not request leave under rule 48.04(1), without permitting submissions on these issues.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's orders must be set aside on grounds of natural justice and fair procedure.