Robert Brown

The plaintiff homeowners sued the defendant contractors for breach of contract regarding a backyard renovation project, alleging fundamental breach due to delays, defective workmanship, and misplaced helical piles.

The court found no fundamental breach by the defendants, noting that the deficiencies were either corrected or easily remediable, and that the delays were largely due to the permit process.

Instead, the court held that the plaintiffs breached the contract by refusing to allow the defendants to return to the site to complete the work and fix the deficiencies.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed, the defendants were awarded damages for the unpaid balance of the contract, and the corporate veil was not pierced.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a building permit issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) for the construction of a riding arena on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appeal judge had found that the arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that the CBO failed to consider the Official Plan's major development policies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard instead of reasonableness to the CBO's interpretation of the home by-law.

The Court found the CBO's conclusion that the arena was a permitted principal agricultural building was reasonable and correct.

Furthermore, the Court held that conformity with the Official Plan is not 'other applicable law' under the Building Code Act that would justify refusing a permit.

The applicant estate trustee sought directions on whether the respondent's claim against the estate for $150,000, pursuant to a separation agreement, was statute-barred.

The deceased had failed to maintain life insurance as required, creating a first charge on the estate.

The estate trustee withheld information from the respondent that the life insurance policies had lapsed, delaying the respondent's discovery of her claim.

The court held that while the two-year limitation period under s. 38 of the Trustee Act applied, it was tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment due to the estate trustee's unconscionable conduct in withholding material facts.

The respondent's claim was therefore permitted to proceed.

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.