Kevin Patrick Butler

The applicants, neighbours of the respondent, sought a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of a curb wall constructed of concrete blocks along the respondent’s driveway, alleging it constituted a private nuisance and violated City of Ottawa by-laws.

The court found that the respondent was not in breach of the relevant by-laws and that the applicants failed to prove substantial and unreasonable interference with their property.

The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Xtreme Trampoline Park Inc. and XTP Holdings Inc., brought an oppression remedy application against the majority shareholder, Sixin Wei, alleging he denied them access to financial records, withheld proceeds from a property sale, and surreptitiously obtained funds held in trust.

The court found Mr. Wei's conduct oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and unfairly disregarded the applicants' reasonable expectations regarding financial transparency and distribution of sale proceeds.

The court ordered Mr. Wei to provide full access to accounting records, a detailed accounting of funds, and to preserve a significant portion of the disputed funds in an interest-bearing account pending further agreement or court order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a discovery dispute, seeking to exclude one co-defendant from the virtual discovery of the other and requesting costs thrown away for previously cancelled discoveries.

The court found that the risks of improper collaboration are heightened during virtual discoveries when co-defendants are in the same location without counsel present.

The court ordered that the co-defendants be examined in the absence of each other.

The request for costs thrown away was denied due to both counsel's failure to communicate effectively and agree on a discovery plan.

The applicant sought court approval for a proposed $6,000 settlement regarding a dog bite injury sustained by a seven-year-old minor.

The court identified several deficiencies in the application record, including improper service on the unrepresented respondent, insufficient evidence of the settlement terms, incorrect calculation of the contingency fee, and failure to request an order dispensing with an oral hearing.

The court directed the applicant to file additional materials to address these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.