Hugh MacKenzie

The appellant appealed the approval of a consent to sever and a minor variance for lot frontage to allow the creation of two lots for single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents sensitive intensification, conforms to the Official Plan, and meets the criteria for severance and minor variances.

The appeal was dismissed, provisional consent was granted, and the variance was authorized subject to conditions, including tree replacement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the self-represented defendant in civil contempt of three previous court orders.

The orders required the defendant to remove defamatory online broadcasts and videos about the plaintiffs and prohibited him from posting further defamatory material.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the orders were clear, the defendant had actual knowledge of them, and he intentionally breached them by failing to remove the posts and by publishing new defamatory content.

The defendant was found in contempt, with a penalty hearing to be scheduled.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize and enforce a default judgment obtained in Maryland against the defendants for $107,797.63 USD.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the Maryland court lacked jurisdiction, the judgment was obtained by fraud, natural justice was denied, and enforcement would be contrary to public policy.

The court found that the Maryland court properly assumed jurisdiction, the defendants failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion to enforce the foreign judgment was granted.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside two previous orders under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

He argued the motion judge failed to take a contextual approach to setting aside a default judgment and that the previous judge lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that alleged legal errors or jurisdictional issues are not 'mistakes' correctable under Rule 25(19)(b), but rather appealable errors.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant submitted a petition signed by a sufficient number of employees.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant, a former supervisor who retained a close relationship with management, circulated the petition.

The Board found that employees would reasonably perceive the applicant as closely associated with management and might fear that management would learn whether they signed.

Given this perception, the unusual lack of discussion before signing, and the applicant's unreliable testimony, the Board concluded the applicant failed to prove the petition represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The application was dismissed.