Meagan J. Swan

The appellants, two cottagers' associations, appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that individual cottage sewage systems were subject to the Building Code Act rather than the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The central issue was whether the relevant "lot or parcel of land" for determining regulatory jurisdiction was the five registered parcels owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority or the individual cottage lots described in leases.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that "lot or parcel of land" means land that is legally recognized for municipal and planning law purposes and for which title can be conveyed.

Since the individual cottage lots were not formally severed or registered, the five registered parcels constituted the relevant "lot or parcel of land," bringing the collective sewage systems (exceeding 10,000 litres per day) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the plaintiff, Hockeyfest Incorporated, under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied a two-stage test: first, whether the plaintiff was a corporation with insufficient assets (which was conceded), and second, whether justice demanded the case proceed without security, considering impecuniosity and the merits.

The court found Hockeyfest failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity and that its claims against all defendants had very little chance of success due to its own non-compliance with contractual terms and misrepresentations.

Consequently, the court ordered Hockeyfest to post significant security for costs to each defendant, prohibiting further steps until paid, and allowing for dismissal if not posted within 30 days.

The executors of Recia Royston's estate sought court direction on the interpretation of clause 4(f) of her 2014 Will, concerning the distribution of the residue.

The dispute centered on whether the issue of a child who predeceased the testatrix (Alan) were entitled to a share, specifically Jacob and Jennifer.

Laura Royston, a living child, argued that only living children and their issue (if they predeceased) should benefit.

The court, applying principles of will construction, found that the plain meaning of the will, read in context with a previous will and other clauses, indicated an intention to benefit the issue of any deceased child, including Alan's children.

The court ruled that Jacob and Jennifer were entitled to share equally in one quarter of the residue.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of a real estate purchase agreement.

The defendants failed to close the transaction to purchase the plaintiff's property for $310,000.

The plaintiff relisted the property and eventually sold it for $260,000.

The court found that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages and awarded $59,135.72, representing the $50,000 difference in purchase price plus carrying costs, legal fees for the aborted sale, and prejudgment interest.