Mary Kathleen Kinch

The appellant municipality was charged with contraventions under the Endangered Species Act for road maintenance activities that allegedly harmed an endangered butterfly species.

The municipality sought declaratory relief stating that its road maintenance obligations under the Municipal Act superseded the Endangered Species Act, exempting it from compliance.

The application judge dismissed the application as premature and not ripe for adjudication, noting the municipality had not attempted to obtain a permit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the issues were not justiciable and should be addressed either through the permit process or in the ongoing quasi-criminal prosecution.

The applicant municipality sought declarations and advisory opinions from the Superior Court of Justice regarding a perceived conflict between its statutory duty to maintain highways under the Municipal Act, 2001, and its obligations to protect endangered species and their habitats under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The municipality faced charges under the ESA for road maintenance activities that allegedly harmed the mottled Duskywing butterfly and its habitat, arguing it was impossible to comply with both statutes simultaneously.

The court dismissed the application, finding the issues were not ripe for declaratory relief because the municipality had not availed itself of the permit process provided under the ESA, nor had it fully tested its defenses in the ongoing provincial prosecution.

The defendants, a land surveying company and an employee, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' reference plan incorrectly depicted a property boundary, leading to loss of access to their mill.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act and constituted an abuse of process due to prior related litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claim was discovered within the two-year limitation period when the plaintiffs first learned the boundary might be wrong (August/September 2015), and that the action was not an abuse of process as it concerned distinct factual allegations from previous claims.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage operation as an on-farm diversified use.

In this case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbours and participant status to eleven individuals, finalized the issues list, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The appellants filed a motion under s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act after the Township issued a notice of incomplete application for a zoning by-law amendment, requiring an Official Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Study, and servicing report.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order deeming the application complete without the requested studies, subject to the appellants providing confirmation from the Health Unit regarding a septic system permit.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing triplex.

The refusal was based on the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority's position that the property lacked safe access during a regulatory storm event, relying on 2014 draft flood plain mapping.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 flood lines had not been formally adopted into the City's Official Plan and were therefore not determinative.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's engineering evidence that ground-truthed the model using a 2004 storm event, demonstrating that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development.

The appeal was allowed.

The plaintiff hired the defendant to construct a pole barn.

The defendant abandoned the project before completion, citing delays and health issues, leaving the barn unfinished and exposed to the elements.

The defendant failed to appear at trial.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff $71,288.13 in damages, representing the overpayment for work performed and the estimated cost to complete the barn to the contract's specifications, plus $10,500 in costs.

This appeal concerned the capacity of Paul Tanti to enter into a marriage with Sharon Joseph.

Raymond Tanti, Paul's son, appealed the trial judge's decision that the marriage was valid, arguing his father lacked the requisite capacity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, holding that the correct legal test for marriage capacity was applied, which requires understanding the nature of the marriage contract and its duties.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the discounting of non-contemporaneous expert opinions and the reliance on direct lay witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the marriage.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to legalize an existing triplex located in a floodplain area.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the Society to provide reasons and explanations regarding a positive verification decision and to address the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had fully met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The non-compliance allegations were dismissed and the file was closed.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.

The applicant, an incorporated association managing a recreational park, applied to vacate a 1997 court order that established a two-manager governance system.

Three respondent members brought a counter-application challenging the applicant's corporate standing and seeking an external financial audit.

The court found that the applicant lacked standing because the park's constitution was never properly amended to authorize incorporation.

The court partially vacated the 1997 order, removing provisions related to the defunct two-manager system but leaving other substantive provisions intact.

The request for an external audit was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory threshold under the Corporations Act and lacking majority member support.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged breaches of an oral retainer/employment agreement, fiduciary duties, and confidentiality.

The court found serious issues to be tried regarding whether Mr. Macklin and his company breached their agreement, owed fiduciary duties as a "de facto general manager" and took confidential property.

The balance of convenience plainly favoured the plaintiff, as the potential harm to its business was deemed irreparable and difficult to quantify, while the defendants' inconvenience was less significant.

An interim injunction was granted, prohibiting the defendants from accepting business from specific entities related to the plaintiff's flower transport business until a further interlocutory motion hearing.