Kevin Cooke

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their remaining claims for damages arising from the respondent municipality's enactment of a fill permit by-law and its unsuccessful prosecution of the appellants for breach of that by-law.

The appellants claimed malicious prosecution, misfeasance and abuse of public office, and damages from the invalid fee provisions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial on any of the claims.

The respondent had reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue the prosecution, and there was no evidence of bad faith or unlawful conduct in enacting the by-law.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver and an interlocutory injunction, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $290,313.82, alleging improper conduct by the plaintiff.

The court found no reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, including the overriding principle of reasonableness and the defendants' divided success on their own motion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $120,000.

In a commercial joint venture dispute over four waterfront land developments, the moving party sought appointment of a receiver-manager or, alternatively, an interlocutory injunction preserving its principal's role as project manager and restraining enforcement of related debt obligations.

The court held that the claimed breaches of the joint venture agreements and asserted fiduciary duties raised serious issues, but not a strong prima facie case, and that any loss was compensable in damages rather than irreparable.

Applying the interlocutory receiver and injunction frameworks, the court found the balance of convenience strongly favoured the responding parties, particularly because the requested relief would effectively rewrite negotiated contractual rights and jeopardize project completion and marketability.

The court also held that a constructive trust notice had been improperly registered under the Land Titles Act, discharged it subject to a 30-day opportunity to seek a certificate of pending litigation, and dismissed the action against one individual defendant.

The appellant claimed she suffered pregnancy complications after a police officer wrongfully confiscated her car in August 2009.

She pursued a police complaint and was informed of the outcome in November 2012.

She commenced a negligence action in October 2013.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period began to run on the date of the incident, as the appellant knew the material facts giving rise to her claim at that time.