Martin F. Mahlstedt

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant consent to sever a property to create three new lots and one retained lot for semi-detached dwellings.

While the proposal met zoning requirements and provincial intensification policies, the Tribunal found it did not conform to the City's Official Plan policies regarding compatibility and fit.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the opposing planning expert, concluding that the proposed lot widths and built form failed to respect the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after obtaining a judgment for $11,826.98 in a mortgage dispute.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

The court found that the plaintiffs had grossly overreached by demanding almost four times their entitlement before agreeing to discharge the mortgage, while the defendant had maintained an unreasonable position regarding the interest rate, rendering the matter virtually unsettleable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the amount owing by the defendant on a mortgage.

The court found that the stated interest rate of 0.8% was a typo and the agreed rate was 8%.

The court disallowed the plaintiffs' claims for a lender's fee, an automatic renewal fee, and administrative fees, finding the renewal fee to be a penalty and the others unsupported by evidence.

The court also found the plaintiffs had received a payment of $86,184.68, contrary to their assertions.

The defendant was ordered to pay the remaining balance of $11,826.98, and the plaintiffs were denied their pre-litigation legal fees.