Martin J. Prost

The respondent contractor was retained to construct a new home.

He performed most of the work, but the owners installed the well, septic system, and fireplaces.

The respondent was charged with failing to register as a builder under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

He was acquitted at trial and on appeal on the basis that he was not a 'builder' because he did not perform all the work.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act is consumer protection legislation requiring a broad interpretation.

A contractor who performs a significant portion of the construction is a 'builder' even if the owner is responsible for some work.

The applicant father appealed a motion judge's decision varying child support, arguing the judge erred by refusing to impute income to the respondent mother, refusing to make the support increase and extraordinary expenses retroactive, and denying his claims regarding an educational fund.

The father also sought to introduce new evidence of the mother's income tax return.

The Divisional Court admitted the new evidence but found it would not have changed the motion judge's decision.

The court held that the motion judge made no error in fact or law and applied the correct standard of review, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed an injunction restraining him from the unauthorized practice of law.

The Law Society alleged he acted as a lawyer by advising a landlord on a commercial lease renewal and advising property owners in a boundary line dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct went beyond mere negotiation and involved giving legal advice on questions of law, which constitutes practising law contrary to s. 50(1) of the Law Society Act.

The parties brought a joint motion to implement a settlement of an appeal.

They sought to amend the lower court's judgment, which had declared a mortgage fraudulent and void, so that the mortgage would only be void as between the appellant and respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment could compromise the rights of other secured creditors, such as Legal Aid, who were not parties to the settlement.