Matthew M. Shoemaker

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from using his rural-zoned property as a contractor's yard, sawmill, or for commercial activities, alleging breach of zoning by-laws and nuisance (noise, drainage).

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of a "clear breach" of the by-law or irreparable harm, and that the respondent's activities were consistent with personal property development plans.

The court also noted that some alleged issues were outside the purview of the by-law the applicants sought to enforce.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to satisfy undertakings to use "best efforts" to locate two witnesses and provide will-say statements.

The plaintiffs initially provided no details of their efforts.

After an adjournment, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit detailing searches of invoices, the internet, LinkedIn, and Canada411.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs should have "cold called" other contractors in the area.

The court found that "best efforts" does not require exhausting every conceivable avenue and held the undertakings were satisfied, dismissing the motion.

However, because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of their efforts until after the motion was brought, the court awarded costs of $1,275 to the defendants.