John R. Hart

The applicant municipality sought an order under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the respondent from using her property as a short-term rental, arguing it constituted an illegal 'Tourist Establishment' under the zoning by-law.

The respondent brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that her use was permitted or that the by-law was unacceptably vague and ultra vires.

The court found that the by-law did not clearly regulate short-term use in the Resort Residential zone and that, by attempting to regulate the identity of the users rather than the use of the land, it was ultra vires the Planning Act.

The municipality's application was dismissed and the by-law was declared of no force and effect to the extent it purported to regulate short-term rentals.

The applicant mother sought to change final custody and access orders, requesting sole custody of two children and alternating weekend access for the respondent father, along with child support retroactive to January 2012 based on imputed income of $30,000 annually.

The respondent father sought sole custody with an equal rotating residential schedule or, alternatively, continuation of joint custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the 2009 and 2010 final orders, including escalating conflict between the parties, temporary sole custody granted to the mother in 2011, and criminal charges against the paternal grandfather for assault.

The court granted final sole custody to the mother, modified the access schedule to reduce parental conflict, and ordered child support based on imputed income of $25,000 annually, retroactive to January 2013.

The plaintiff, a judgment creditor, brought an action for oppression and fraudulent conveyance against the corporate debtor, a newly formed successor corporation, and their sole director.

The director had transferred the debtor's business and assets to the new corporation to avoid paying a Wisconsin judgment and an Ontario costs order.

The court found the conduct oppressive and the transfer a fraudulent conveyance, piercing the corporate veil to hold the director personally liable alongside the successor corporation for the judgment debt.

Following a successful defence motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $42,000.

The court accepted that elevated costs were justified due to the plaintiff’s nearly twenty‑year failure to advance the litigation.

However, the court found the defendants’ bill of costs inadequately detailed and the claimed amount excessive.

Balancing the plaintiff’s unexplained delay against the insufficient cost justification, the court fixed a reduced substantial indemnity award.

The applicant brought a motion to change prior custody and access orders concerning three children, seeking sole custody and supervised access for the respondent.

Evidence showed ongoing high conflict, inappropriate communications by the respondent toward the applicant, and concerns regarding emotional regulation during parenting.

An investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the applicant and therapeutic supervised access for the respondent.

The court found a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and concluded that joint parenting was no longer workable.

Sole custody was granted to the applicant, with therapeutic supervised access for the respondent subject to review.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that there was consideration to support the agreement.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the Crown's appeal from an order quashing search warrants obtained under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the appeal was moot because the Crown had made a deliberate choice not to execute the impugned warrants to keep the trial process moving.

The court also held that the ancillary costs order could not sustain the moot appeal.

The appeal was quashed in its entirety.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to the Divisional Court.

The OMB had dismissed a joint motion to dismiss a draft plan of subdivision without a hearing, finding it had jurisdiction despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision because it failed to apply principles of statutory interpretation regarding vested rights and jurisdiction.

The court also found the issue of the OMB's jurisdiction in light of collateral statutory amendments to be of sufficient public importance.

The appellant bailiff appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for selling the respondent's tools and materials without notice under the Repair and Storage Liens Act after locking the respondent out of commercial premises for rent arrears.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking damages based on full replacement cost rather than actual value.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on liability, the measure of damages, or the determination that the claim was not statute-barred.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they did not have a substantial interest in a property.

The Court of Appeal held that even considering the appellants' $130,000 equity in the property, they could not show the requisite substantial interest.

Combined with the absence of persuasive evidence of alternative funding, the application judge correctly concluded there were no special circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that all essential terms of the 'clean break' scenario were settled by June 16, 2003.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding that a co-defendant held monies in trust for the respondent.

The motion judge had concluded that 75% of the sale price of products remained the property of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the agreement merely created a contractual obligation to pay 75% of the invoiced amount, with the co-defendant assuming the risk of non-payment.

The lack of a requirement to segregate funds further negated the existence of a trust.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment against the appellant was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a supplementary endorsement amending a previous endorsement.

The appeal by the appellant Thomson was allowed, the summary judgment against him was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis and the costs of the motion below at $40,000.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging a denial of natural justice because the original hearing panel failed to provide adequate notice that the parties' agreement on job classes was in jeopardy.

The respondent city opposed the request, arguing that the majority decision demonstrated proper notice was given.

Noting a disagreement between the majority and minority decisions regarding the notice provided, the Tribunal directed the parties to produce excerpts from the original hearing transcripts to assist in determining whether a breach of natural justice occurred.