Robert A. Spence

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that its commercial property was an 'eligible property' under s. 447.34.1 of the Municipal Act.

The property had been subject to a frozen assessment listing, and a notice of supplementary assessment triggered s. 447.10.

The Court of Appeal held that the property met the definition of 'eligible property' because s. 447.10(2) applied to determine the final assessment after improvements were made.

The appeal was allowed, and the municipality was ordered to determine the total assessment for the property as an eligible property.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an order permitting it to enter the respondents' units to carry out mould remediation.

The corporation argued that the respondents' chosen method of remediation was insufficient and created a dangerous condition under s. 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings that the corporation failed to prove a risk of mould spreading to other units.

The Court also held that the deference standard from Dvorchik did not apply because the corporation's remediation requirement was not a formal rule and involved competing statutory rights.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that an oral retainer existed between the appellant Mauro and the respondent law firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the heavy onus on the solicitor to establish an oral retainer was met.

The Court also rejected the argument that an oral retainer is void unless in writing under the Solicitors Act, noting that there was no dispute as to the amount of compensation.

The appellant appealed an order interpreting the terms of a settlement.

The Court of Appeal found no ambiguity in the settlement terms and agreed with the motion judge's interpretation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.