Kourtney Patricia O'Dwyer

The appellants sought to demonstrate compliance with a previous Tribunal order requiring them to show that a proposed parking area on their property complied with the Zoning By-law, apart from specific relief granted.

The Tribunal found that the survey provided by the appellants was inadequate as it was an overlay created by a draftsman rather than a professional survey.

The Town and added parties requested the appeal be dismissed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal immediately, granting the appellants a final opportunity to provide a professional survey by a set deadline, failing which a motion to dismiss would likely be brought.

The applicant appealed the Town of Greater Napanee's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit a permanent asphalt and ready-mix concrete plant.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a local group, Keep Napanee Great, on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day hearing of the merits.

The respondent mother (RM) brought a motion seeking the return of her child (M.R.) to her temporary care and custody or expanded access.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) opposed, citing COVID-19 restrictions and the mother's current parenting capacity.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on access and the impending closure of M.R.'s foster home.

Considering M.R.'s best interests, including his consistent desire to return to his mother, the CAS's delays in providing mandated services, and the instability of M.R.'s placements, the court ordered M.R.'s reintegration into his mother's full-time care by July 31, 2020, under a supervision order, with virtual access in the interim.

A former spouse brought a motion seeking interim and permanent spousal support more than two decades after separation and many years after divorce.

The applicant was disabled, dependent on social assistance, and unable to work, while the respondent was retired with modest pension income and had reorganized his finances following remarriage.

The court held that delay in pursuing support does not bar relief under the Divorce Act, but extreme and unexplained delay may significantly affect entitlement and quantum.

Although the applicant established need and entitlement due to disability following a long marriage, the court found the delay unreasonable and reduced support substantially below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Interim spousal support of $300 per month was ordered with no retroactivity and no indexation.

The appellant, a former municipal building official, was wrongfully dismissed and subsequently charged criminally after the municipality reported alleged missing permit fees to the police.

After being acquitted, he sued for wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution.

The trial judge awarded damages for wrongful dismissal but dismissed the malicious prosecution claim, finding no initiation or malice by the municipality.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the high threshold for malice applicable to Crown prosecutors to a private defendant, and by making inconsistent findings regarding the municipality's conduct.

A new trial was ordered for the malicious prosecution claim and the quantum of punitive damages.

The appellants appealed a decision rejecting their request for a declaration that an access road was a public highway and that the Township was responsible for its maintenance and repair.

The appellants argued that the road's dedication by Ontario and assumption by the Township were apparent from surrounding circumstances, including negotiations and expenditures.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that there was no actual dedication by Ontario and no clear and unequivocal assumption by the Township, as the Township had sought work permits and was compensated by Ontario for maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that work performed by the respondent was referable to an oral agreement to transfer properties to him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was supported by uncontradicted evidence and there was no basis to interfere.