Kenneth C. Hill

The appellants appealed a decision of the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner denying them permission to build a home on their land due to flood control concerns raised by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming a general legislative prohibition on development in floodplains and by elevating safety to a stand-alone head of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the proposed development would have no impact on flood control and directed the approval of the development without conditions.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a removal order for animals on his farm, arguing that the veterinarian's certificate was false because the veterinarian did not physically examine every animal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a 'hands-on' examination of every animal is not required under s. 14 of the OSPCAA.

The veterinarian's visual observation of the herd, combined with a close examination of one animal and the surrounding circumstances, constituted a sufficient examination to ground the removal order.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellant from a Superior Court decision under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Society argued that because the Act states the judge's decision is 'final', no further appeal lies and the appellant must proceed by judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the word 'final' does not oust the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Courts of Justice Act, and the decision is appealable as a final order of a Superior Court judge.

The deceased's sons brought a dependant's support claim against his estate, arguing that two life insurance policies worth $1,500,000 should be included in the estate under s. 72(1)(f) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The policies were owned by a corporation in which the deceased and his wife each held a 50% interest.

The motion judge found the deceased had a beneficial interest and deemed him to have owned the policies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the policies were owned by the corporation, not the deceased, and therefore did not form part of his estate for the purposes of the Act.