John David Goudy

The applicant sought specific performance of three agreements of purchase and sale for land, conditional on consent severance approval.

The respondent purported to terminate the agreements, arguing the municipality would not consent to severance.

The court found that the respondent had a good faith duty to apply for consent severance, which it failed to do initially.

However, a "without prejudice" application was later made and rejected by the municipality.

The court held that the agreements explicitly required consent severance, not a plan of subdivision, and that Schedule A superseded Clause 15 regarding compliance with the Planning Act.

Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to compel the respondent to pursue a more expensive and time-consuming plan of subdivision.

The application for specific performance was dismissed, but the applicant was entitled to the return of their deposits with interest.

This endorsement follows a case conference in a long-standing dispute concerning surface water drainage and contempt of court orders.

The plaintiff sought urgent directions regarding the defendant's refusal to allow proper access for mandated remedial work on his property.

Although the immediate access dispute was resolved prior to the conference, the court clarified that there is no ongoing formal proceeding (`lis pendens`) and that any future enforcement, such as further contempt findings, would require the plaintiff to initiate new formal motions.

The court reiterated the defendant's obligation to comply with previous orders and warned of potential escalated sanctions, including imprisonment, for continued non-compliance.

This endorsement quantifies the initial amount the defendant must pay into court for remedial work on his property and determines the contempt fine.

The court found the defendant, Todd Joseph Sullivan, to be a "completely recalcitrant contemnor" for his ongoing refusal to accept and comply with previous court orders regarding drainage issues affecting the plaintiff's property.

The court ordered the defendant to pay $66,274.00 into court for the "Modified Option 1" remedial work, including supplemental components, and a $10,000.00 fine to the Provincial Treasurer for contempt.

The court emphasized the binding nature of its decisions and warned of potential imprisonment for future non-compliance.

This endorsement addresses the settlement of a formal order following a liability judgment in contempt proceedings and outlines the schedule for a subsequent case conference and trial continuation.

The court finalized the order proposed by the plaintiff with minor revisions, noting the defendant's significant delay in responding.

A detailed timetable was established for the remaining issues, including purging contempt, penalty, and costs, with a strong emphasis on avoiding further delays given the defendant's nine-year non-compliance with a prior order.

The appellant sought a declaration that a zoning by-law provision limiting gross leasable commercial floor area for a "community shopping centre" to 4,645 m² (50,000 ft²) did not apply to developments with five or fewer separate spaces for lease or occupancy.

The appellant argued that "community shopping centre" must be a type of "shopping centre" as defined in the by-law, which requires six or more separated spaces.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that "community shopping centre" was a distinct term from "shopping centre" and that the provision applied regardless of the number of units.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's contextual interpretation of the by-law in light of the Official Plan.

The Plaintiff, Wonderland Power Centre Inc., initiated an action against Post and Beam on Wonderland Inc. concerning a restrictive covenant on land previously sold by Wonderland's predecessor to the London Public Library Board.

Wonderland sought an injunction, a declaration that the covenant was binding, and rectification of the land register if it was unenforceable.

Post and Beam sought summary judgment dismissing the action and a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable.

The court found the registered restrictive covenant unenforceable due to its failure to identify the benefiting lands as required by the Land Titles Act.

However, the court granted Wonderland's request for rectification of the register, noting Post and Beam's actual notice of the intended restriction.

Wonderland's motion for an interim injunction was dismissed due to a lack of irreparable harm, and Post and Beam's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, with remaining claims for a permanent injunction and damages to proceed to trial.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a zoning by-law provision concerning the maximum gross leasable commercial floor area for a "community shopping centre" on its property.

The applicant argued that the 50,000 square foot limitation only applied if the development contained six or more separated spaces, based on the general definition of "Shopping Centre" in the by-law.

The respondent municipality argued that the limitation applied to any project irrespective of the number of units.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the definition of "Shopping Centre" did not apply to "community shopping centre" in the specific context of the by-law and Official Plan, and that the size limitation was intended to apply to the square footage of a structure accommodating a community shopping area, not based on the number of units.

The plaintiff, London Medical and Dental Building Limited (LMDB), brought an action against Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 83 (MCC 83) and Gannon Medicine Professional Corporation (Gannon) for trespass, nuisance, breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

The dispute arose from access through LMDB's building (450 Central Avenue) to an elevator in an adjacent condominium building (440 Central Avenue), which was crucial for persons with mobility devices.

MCC 83 and Gannon brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss LMDB's action and, for MCC 83, to obtain declaratory relief on its counterclaim regarding access rights.

The court dismissed LMDB's action against MCC 83 entirely and dismissed most of LMDB's claims against Gannon, allowing only the unjust enrichment claim against Gannon to proceed.

The court found that the 1999 Agreement granted access rights to owners, occupants, and guests of the condominium, including patients of the commercial unit, and LMDB's purported termination of this agreement was ineffective.

A third party brought a motion to change venue from Toronto to Chatham in litigation arising from damage to telecommunications infrastructure.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including convenience of witnesses, location of the damage, and community interest.

Although some witnesses and the incident location were in Chatham, many damages witnesses and counsel were located in Toronto and the plaintiff had chosen Toronto as the forum.

The moving party failed to establish that the proposed venue was significantly better than the plaintiff’s chosen forum.

The motion to change venue was dismissed with costs.