J. Robert Leblanc

The appellant appealed the City's enactment of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a dental office on a vacant lot.

The appellant argued the amendment was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and failed to conform with the Official Plan, which discouraged small lot rezoning in favour of block face development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the amendment was consistent with the 2020 PPS by facilitating economic activity and intensification.

The Tribunal also found the amendment conformed with the Official Plan, noting that a holding provision requiring comprehensive block development was inequitable given the surrounding owners' refusal to participate.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent tenant $25,000 in damages for illegal distraint and dismissing the landlord's claim for unpaid common area expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship ended when the landlord changed the locks, making the subsequent distraint of the tenant's chattels illegal.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the landlord's claim for common area expenses due to a lack of supporting evidence at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

Malmac Enterprises Inc., a mortgagee in possession, sought a declaration that West Bay Road is an access road under the Road Access Act and an injunction to prevent Melissa and Nicola Alkhoury from blocking access to property 600 West Bay Road.

The Alkhourys, owners of the adjacent property 590 West Bay Road, had repeatedly blocked the road which traverses their land.

The court found West Bay Road to be an access road and that the Alkhourys' barriers prevented all road access to the property.

The Alkhourys had also failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement to construct an alternate access road.

The court granted the declaration and injunction, restraining the Alkhourys from blocking the road, except as permitted by the Act.

A bankrupt applicant sought an order under s. 178(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act declaring that the statutory non-dischargeability of student loan debt under s. 178(1) did not apply.

The court considered the applicant’s circumstances, including long‑term financial hardship, limited earning capacity, and significant personal and medical challenges.

Applying the statutory two‑part test, the court was satisfied the applicant had acted in good faith in connection with the student loans and continued to experience financial difficulty that would prevent repayment.

The court concluded the statutory criteria were met and granted relief permitting the discharge of the student loan debt.

The respondents sought a declaration that a route across the appellant's land was an access road under the Road Access Act.

The trial judge found an access road existed and granted an injunction allowing the respondents access.

The trial judge also found the appellant in contempt for breaching interim orders.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the injunction because it was not properly before the trial judge, and set aside the finding that an access road existed because the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence of overgrowth and the respondents' actions in clearing the route.

The matter was remitted for re-determination.

The finding of contempt was upheld.