4 total
Misfeasance claim against child welfare agency restored; negligence and Charter claims by foster parent struck.
The appellant, a former foster parent, appealed the striking of his claims against child welfare agencies for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from an investigation into allegations of sexual assault.
The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and Charter claims, confirming that child welfare agencies do not owe a duty of care to foster parents.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, restoring the misfeasance in public office claim against one agency, finding that the pleadings and particulars sufficiently alleged bad faith and collaboration with malicious adoptive parents.
Engineer's report for municipal drain set aside because it failed to properly analyze an emergency retaining wall.
The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.
The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.
The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.
The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.
Tribunal amends Drainage Act assessment schedule to apportion 26% Benefit and 74% Outlet Liability.
The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.
The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.
The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.
The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.
Human rights application dismissed as Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over adoptive parents' refusal to communicate.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against the respondent Children's Aid Society.
The applicant alleged that the adoptive parents of her biological children refused to communicate with her due to her disability, and that the respondent's worker relayed this discriminatory message.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal noted that the respondent had no control over the adoptive parents' wishes and that the applicant's questions regarding open adoption and access rights were matters for a court, not the Tribunal.
