4 total
Appeal allowed; genuine issues of fact regarding whether architects' plans enhanced land value required a trial.
The appellant architects were retained to design a building and obtained site plan approval, but the project was abandoned and their retainer terminated.
The architects registered a claim for lien for unpaid invoices, which the owner successfully moved to vacate under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act on the basis that the services did not enhance the value of the land.
On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly resolved genuine issues of fact that should have been left for trial.
The Court also clarified that where a planned improvement does not proceed, only the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, or specifications that in themselves enhance the value of the land are lienable, and this enhancement must be assessed at the precise time the services are rendered.
Appeal of child support income calculation dismissed; trial judge's exercise of discretion upheld.
The appellant appealed a Family Court order regarding the calculation of his income and the resulting child support obligations.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's calculation of the appellant's income was justified based on the evidence tendered.
The court declined to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion and awarded costs of $2,000 to the respondent.
Appeal allowed; courts must defer to democratically enacted by-laws of housing co-operatives unless overwhelmingly unreasonable.
The appellant housing co-operative appealed a decision dismissing its application to evict the respondent for breaching its lock and pet by-laws.
The trial judge had dismissed the application on the basis that the by-laws were unreasonable.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in principle by failing to defer to the democratically enacted by-laws of the co-operative.
The Court held that absent bad faith or overwhelming unreasonableness, courts should not substitute their views for those of a co-operative's membership.
Transferring judge lacks jurisdiction to order costs payable in Small Claims Court.
The appellant appealed an order made on a motion to transfer an action to the Small Claims Court.
The motion judge had ordered that the successful party at trial would have their costs of the action to the date of transfer in the cause.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act to order costs payable in another court or to fetter the discretion of the Small Claims Court trial judge regarding costs.
