5 total
Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variance quashed for inadequate reasons and failure to apply statutory test.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.
The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.
The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.
The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.
The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.
Tenants' appeal of LTB eviction orders for conversion of mobile home park to commercial use dismissed.
The appellants, ten tenants of a mobile home park, appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions allowing the landlord's application to evict them to convert the property to non-residential use.
The tenants argued the LTB erred in law regarding the sufficiency of the N13 notices, the test for good faith, and the consideration of relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The Divisional Court found no errors of law, holding that the notices provided sufficient detail, the LTB correctly assessed the landlord's good faith intention to convert the land use, and the LTB adequately considered the tenants' circumstances before granting the eviction with a delayed enforcement.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal decision noted
This application sought the court's opinion and direction on the interpretation and potential rectification of Shirley Cunningham's General and Limited Property Wills.
The core issue was whether Kimberly Cunningham, a grandchild born outside of marriage, should be considered a "child" of Tenny Clark-Drost for the purposes of a trust established in the wills, given an "Exclusion Clause" that defined "children" as not including those born outside marriage.
The applicant, Carrie-Lee Hofman, argued Kimberly was excluded.
The respondent, Kimberly Cunningham, sought rectification, arguing the clause was a drafting error contrary to the testatrix's true intent.
The court found that the drafting solicitor's inclusion of the Exclusion Clause and the use of a beneficiary class instead of specific names constituted a drafting mistake, as it did not align with Shirley's clear instructions to benefit both Carrie-Lee and Kimberly equally.
Rectification was ordered, deleting the problematic clauses from both wills, thereby including Kimberly as a beneficiary.
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's failure to provide reasons cured by clear record of appellants' default.
The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of defence and crossclaim and granting judgment against them for $49,628.11.
They argued the motion judge failed to give reasons for the decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record clearly disclosed the basis for the order: the appellants failed to answer undertakings despite multiple opportunities and court orders, and failed to respond to the motion to strike.
The evidentiary record supported the judgment amount.
The court partially varied a section 161 prohibition order to expand the offender's list of approved chaperones.
The applicant sought a variation of a section 161 Criminal Code order imposed at sentencing for possession of child pornography and careless storage of ammunition.
The order prohibited him for 10 years from attending public parks, swimming areas, daycare centres, schools, playgrounds, and community centres where persons under 16 were present, except when accompanied by his wife; from seeking employment or volunteering with minors; and from using computer systems to communicate with persons under 16 other than his children.
The applicant requested three modifications: removal of the requirement to be accompanied by a named adult when attending children's activities, permission to attend an arena for adult hockey, and permission for other named individuals to accompany him to prohibited locations.
The court found limited changed circumstances and granted a partial variation, expanding the list of approved companions from his wife alone to 19 named family members and relatives, while maintaining the requirement for supervised attendance at locations where children are present.