James J. Feehely

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The moving parties sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their appeal for delay.

The underlying appeal concerned a permanent injunction requiring them to clean up their property in compliance with a municipal property standards by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was inadequately explained, the proposed appeal was frivolous and without merit, and the ongoing delay prejudiced the municipality and the public interest.

The appellant, Oro-Medonte Property Owners’ Association, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to quash a by-law imposing water system fees and to declare the water system municipal.

The by-law was passed by the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, to fund upgrades to the Zone 1 water system.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Zone 1 system was not assumed by the municipality and that the by-law was within the municipality's statutory authority under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents in an appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding subsequent actions the Township proposed to take to remedy inconsistencies in its zoning by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the potential remedial work by the Township would not assist in interpreting the by-law under review.

The court held that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for fresh evidence, as it was not necessary to deal fairly with the issues on appeal and declining to admit it would not lead to a substantial injustice.

The appellant landowner sued the Town of Newmarket for negligence after its tenant allowed third parties to deposit significantly more fill on the demised land than the appellant had authorized.

The source of some of the fill was a subdivision within the municipality.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the municipality owed no duty of care to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal agreed, distinguishing the case law relied upon by the appellant, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that an agreement between the parties was conditional on the respondents receiving funding from another project.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the release was not an acknowledgment of debt, but rather an agreement to pay a ceiling amount to limit liability if future funding was received.

The appeal was dismissed.