Lia Boritz

The applicants brought an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to declare that an arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear claims brought by the respondent in a family business dispute.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent, who was a shareholder of a corporate partner but not a 'partner' or 'principal' under the partnership agreement, was a 'party' entitled to invoke the arbitration clause.

Applying the principles of contractual interpretation from Sattva, the court found that the plain wording of the agreement, including the recitals and enurement clause, contemplated that shareholders of the partners were parties.

The court concluded that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for dissolution and increased compensation, as well as the applicants' claims regarding management compensation.

The appellant, a foreign trustee based in Liechtenstein, appealed the dismissal of its motions to stay or dismiss two actions for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or forum non conveniens.

The actions alleged that the principals of Bridging Finance Inc. misappropriated funds and transferred them to a trust managed by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the tort of fraud was committed in Ontario and contracts connected to the dispute were made in Ontario.

The appellant failed to rebut these presumptive connecting factors, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance by the Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment.

The variance sought to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 41.1% for a two-storey dwelling on a lot within a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was generally consistent with the existing neighbourhood and maintained the required yard setbacks.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the failure of the Township of Springwater to adopt a site-specific official plan amendment to permit residential development.

During a telephone conference call, the Tribunal was updated that a related appeal by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing had been withdrawn, clearing the path for this appeal.

The parties requested an extension to complete requisite studies, which could result in the appeal being withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the extension and directed the appellant to report back by September 30, 2021.

The property owners brought a motion seeking permission to file late appeals of their property assessments for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for the 2015 and 2016 appeals because the mandatory statutory precondition of a timely request for reconsideration had not been met.

However, because MPAC had inexplicably processed a 2017 request for reconsideration, the Board found the 2017 appeals were filed within the statutory timeframe and accepted them, while also creating deemed appeals for 2018.