Leighton T. Roslyn

The Agnew Lake Property Group requested costs of $27,215.37 against the appellants after their appeals of a zoning by-law amendment were dismissed.

The Property Group argued the appeals were frivolous, vexatious, and without merit.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the appeals lacked land use planning grounds, the appellants' conduct during the proceeding was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious, and they did not act in bad faith.

The Agnew Lake Property Group brought a motion to dismiss appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Township of Nairn and Hyman.

The appellants raised concerns regarding road access and the creation of utility lots.

The Tribunal found that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment only made minor corrections to lot areas to align with an approved draft Plan of Subdivision, and did not affect road access or permitted uses.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeals did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a zoning by-law amendment that updated minimum lot areas for a plan of subdivision.

The Agnew Lake Property Group, granted party status, suggested the appeals did not clearly set out objections and reasons as required by the Planning Act and indicated an intent to bring a motion to dismiss.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of the appeals.

The moving party sought to enforce an unsigned settlement agreement arising from a dispute over the validity of competing wills.

The moving party argued that an agreement on the essential terms had been reached through correspondence between counsel.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing that counteroffers were still being made and no final agreement was reached.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms and that the responding parties never agreed to the terms in the draft minutes of settlement.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of Transport Development Inc. (TDI), brought a motion seeking an order compelling Vale Canada Limited (garnishee) and two interested numbered companies to answer questions and produce documents related to the assignment of a contract originally between Vale and TDI.

The plaintiffs sought this information to quantify amounts for a garnishment hearing, alleging the assignment might have been to avoid garnishment.

The interested parties opposed, arguing garnishment rules apply only to "debts" not "contracts" and citing delay, cost, and privacy concerns.

The court found that Rule 60.08(16)(d) provided broad jurisdiction to determine "any other matter in relation to a notice of garnishment" encompassing assigned debts and contracts.

The court emphasized the duty of honest performance in contracts and the relevance of the subsequent assignment to determine rights and liabilities.

The motion for disclosure was granted, subject to a sealing order, with costs reserved.

The plaintiff subcontractor moved for partial summary judgment against the contractor for funds received from the Ministry of Transportation under a highway paving project.

The contractor had admitted in its pleadings that, after specified deductions, $297,710.82 from a $450,000 payment was owed to the plaintiff but later sought to withhold payment pending determination of counterclaims and other related proceedings.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the “full appreciation test” from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held the issue was document‑driven and that the admissions in the pleadings established the debt.

The defendant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial and had not properly pleaded a set‑off.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the admitted amount with prejudgment interest, while the request to have additional funds paid into court was denied.

At a contested status hearing for two related actions, the defendants sought an order dismissing the plaintiffs' actions for delay.

The actions, commenced in 2003 and 2004, involved complex corporate restructuring and real estate disputes.

The defendants argued prejudice due to the delay and the deaths of a plaintiff and a key witness.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not intended to abandon the actions and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, which included numerous interlocutory proceedings.

The court concluded that dismissing the actions would be a draconian step and instead ordered the actions to continue subject to a strict timetable and a guillotine order.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in a construction lien action.

The defendant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike the plaintiff's defence to the counterclaim, arguing the amendments raised new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the proposed amendments merely expanded and clarified the original pleadings regarding a joint venture and oral agreements, rather than creating new causes of action.

The court found no prejudice to the defendant, as discoveries had not yet occurred, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion.

In a construction lien proceeding, the moving party sought to set the action down for trial on the existing pleadings before expiry of the statutory deadline under section 37.

The responding party objected, arguing the proposal would improperly extend time and delay the action.

The court distinguished prior authority and found the procedural history showed active steps had been taken to advance the matter within time.

The court held the objection sought an unwarranted tactical advantage and accepted the proposed without-prejudice filing approach pending rulings on the motion and cross-motion.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for failure to comply with undertakings given during cross‑examination in a long‑running commercial dispute.

Several undertakings relating to financial records, loan documentation, tax returns, and trust information remained outstanding despite prior court orders requiring compliance.

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to diligently comply and that the attempted responses amounted largely to non‑answers.

While dismissal of the action under Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was considered, the court held that dismissal would be disproportionate at that stage.

Instead, the plaintiffs were precluded from advancing evidence at trial relating to damages allegedly sustained by two corporations or claims based on those corporate losses.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the transferors of property did not intend to create a trust.

The Court of Appeal held that the intention to create a trust is a finding of fact, reviewable only for palpable and overriding error.

The court found that the mere presence of the words 'in trust' in the transfer document was not determinative, and there was evidence supporting an absolute transfer, including nominal consideration and the transferee's labour and devotion to his parents.

The appeal was dismissed.