4 total
Application to close access road dismissed as closure was not reasonably necessary and contrary to public interest.
The applicant brought an application under the Road Access Act to close an access road to the respondents, proposing to erect gates that would allow other property owners access while excluding the respondents.
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that closure was reasonably necessary to prevent substantial damage or injury to his property interests.
Furthermore, the court held that public interest considerations, including emergency and utility access, weighed in favour of keeping the road open.
The application was dismissed.
Condominium manager's licence revoked for unauthorized, undisclosed reserve fund investments and providing false compliance documents.
The appellant, a licensed condominium manager, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his licence.
The Registrar alleged the appellant transferred $500,000 from a condominium corporation's reserve fund to a company he wholly owned, and then to another company where he was Chairman, without proper disclosure or written approval from the condominium board.
The appellant also provided false documents claiming the investment complied with the Condominium Act.
The Tribunal found the appellant breached conflict of interest and false information provisions of the Condominium Management Services Act, demonstrating he would not perform his duties with honesty and integrity.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to revoke the appellant's licence.
Adjournment granted and immediate suspension order extended on consent pending hearing on licence revocation.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his General Licence and an Immediate Suspension Order under the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of the suspension order on consent to allow parties to prepare.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, extended the suspension order until the conclusion of the hearing, and scheduled a case conference to determine next steps.
Motion to dismiss for lack of capacity denied; plaintiff's common law passing-off claims do not require pleading the Trademarks Act.
The moving parties sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3)(b) for lack of legal capacity, arguing the claims were essentially for trademark infringement but failed to plead the Trademarks Act.
The court dismissed this ground, finding the plaintiff's claims were properly grounded in common law breach of contract, passing-off, and unjust enrichment.
The moving parties also argued the action was an abuse of process due to a related proceeding in Toronto.
The court deferred the abuse of process issue, strongly recommending the action be transferred to Toronto and joined with the related proceeding.
