Leonard Ricchetti

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for a declaration that a proposed visitation centre at Mount Pleasant Cemetery was not permitted under the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the proposed visitation centre, which includes a chapel, visitation rooms, and reception facilities, constitutes an 'associated use' under the by-law and falls within the definition of 'cemetery services' under the Cemeteries Act.

The appellants, owners of a condominium project, appealed an order requiring them to hold five units as security pending the determination of an action brought by the respondent purchaser.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge had effectively granted a Mareva injunction without applying the proper legal test.

There was insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case or a real risk of asset dissipation.

The paragraphs of the order requiring the units to be held as security were deleted.

The respondent in the appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence arising from an examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the test for adducing fresh evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence regarding authority to bind a corporation was not determinative of the issue on appeal, which concerned an order to post security, and that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the initial proceeding.

The respondent union council brought a motion to quash the applicant employers' application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had previously ruled that a 1999 settlement agreement was unenforceable against the union council, allowing a related employer application to proceed.

The employers sought judicial review to prohibit the Board from proceeding, arguing the application was an abuse of process and breached the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the threshold issue of whether the union council was bound by the settlement should be reviewed prior to the Board hearing the merits.

The court also dismissed the union council's alternative motion to strike an affidavit, admitting the evidence for the judicial review.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs award.

The Court of Appeal declined to grant leave, regardless of which test for granting leave applied.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a trial judgment that declared its mortgage void and granted priority to construction lien claimants.

The trial judge found the mortgage contravened the financial assistance provisions of the OBCA, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, and the Assignments and Preferences Act, as the mortgagor was insolvent and the mortgagee failed to conduct due diligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of legal principles.

A cross-appeal by a lien claimant regarding trial costs was allowed, and its costs were increased.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision refusing an interlocutory injunction to prevent a professional engineering consulting firm from acting for a competitor.

The motion judge found a serious issue to be tried regarding a potential breach of fiduciary duty but found no irreparable harm.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision because it was open to serious debate whether the strict conflict of interest approach applied to accountants in Drabinsky should also apply to engineers in a fiduciary relationship.

In an appeal arising from Rule 20 and 21 motions, the appellants challenged an order dismissing their action against the executors of a deceased solicitor's estate arising from losses in a gold delivery contract investment scheme.

The court held that claims fitting within ss. 43 and 44 of the Limitations Act, including pleaded fraud, fraudulent breach of trust, recovery of trust property, accounting, and tracing relief, were not barred by the two-year limitation in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The court further held that the doctrine of plene administravit could not be determined against the appellants at this stage because it was not plain and obvious that the estate had no assets beyond $7,138, given possible insurance coverage and tracing remedies.

The appeal was allowed on the main dismissal issue, but dismissed as to two related interlocutory orders striking parts of the reply and refusing to strike an affidavit.

The appellant sought to recover deposit monies on the basis that they were impressed with a trust if the underlying transaction failed to close.

The court held that the appellant met neither branch of the Quistclose requirements because the monies were advanced and used as a deposit for their intended purpose.

The respondents also had no notice at the time the monies were provided that any trust obligation attached to them.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The complainant, an environmental technologist, alleged he was discharged contrary to section 134b(2) of the Environmental Protection Act after cooperating with a Ministry of the Environment investigation and refusing to destroy sensitive documents.

The employer claimed he was terminated for failing to return to work from sick leave.

The Board found the employer's reasons were pretextual and that a major reason for the discharge was the complainant's compliance with the Act and provision of information to the Ministry.

The Board ruled the discharge violated the Act and held that damages would be assessed based on actual compensation rather than Employment Standards Act minimums.