J. Heimpel

The applicants sought a declaration that they were permitted to install solar panels on their home's roof despite a restrictive covenant requiring the developer's approval for any 'structures'.

The developer had demanded the removal of the partially installed solar panels.

The court found that while solar panels do constitute a 'structure' under the covenant, the covenant itself was unenforceable for uncertainty.

The provision gave the developer unfettered discretion to approve or reject structures without setting out any objective criteria.

Consequently, the applicants did not require the developer's approval to proceed with the installation.

A demolition contractor sought partial summary judgment in a construction lien action for unpaid invoices relating to demolition services, crushed concrete, and other project work.

The defendants opposed the motion and advanced set‑off claims alleging defective granular material and erroneous payment for environmental soil remediation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring trial regarding most of the indebtedness.

The evidence established that the crushed concrete met contractual specifications and that soil remediation constituted agreed extras billed at unit rates rather than part of the lump sum contract.

The set‑off claims lacked merit and partial summary judgment was granted for the majority of the amount claimed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant taxi company improperly removed a driver from its approved driver list and requesting reinstatement.

The defendant alleged the driver was cheating the dispatch system by positioning himself to obtain lucrative out‑of‑town calls based on advance knowledge.

The court found the defendant relied on complaints, rumours, and unsupported allegations and failed to produce direct evidence or conduct a proper investigation.

Applying Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability.

Summary judgment was granted, the driver was ordered reinstated, and the matter was directed to trial solely on damages.