Michael A. Jaeger

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his request to preserve a bathroom to take further pictures for his defence.

The motion judge had also dismissed his request for production of existing pictures, finding them irrelevant to the action, which the appellant did not appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the order, as pictures of the room were deemed not relevant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order appointing a receiver over its social housing projects.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The respondent was the only entity with a direct financial interest, and the appellant was insolvent.

The court agreed that a receiver was appropriate to protect the social housing stock, even pending the determination of the appellant's separate motion regarding disputed subsidies.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing successfully applied for the appointment of a receiver over the moving party, a non-profit social housing corporation, due to alleged financial defaults.

The moving party appealed the appointment and brought a motion for a stay pending appeal.

The Ministry argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because the receivership order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction because the receivership was sought by application, making it a final order.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court granted the stay, finding serious issues to be tried regarding the corporation's insolvency and the procedural appropriateness of the receivership application, and that the corporation would suffer irreparable harm if the housing projects were transferred to another entity.

The appellants, who are farmers, appealed a summary judgment enforcing security against them.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to serve the required notice under s. 21 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act before taking proceedings to enforce the security.

The Court held that a farmer does not need to demonstrate insolvency to be entitled to this notice, and the failure to serve it rendered the proceedings null and void under s. 22.

The Court also set aside a contempt order against the appellants.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their claims against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by weighing evidence and concluded there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether one respondent was a director of the corporation, and regarding a limitation period issue.

However, the court upheld the dismissal against another respondent, as there was no evidence he agreed to be appointed as a director.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant police services board appealed a Divisional Court decision finding that its officers unlawfully entered the respondent's home and unlawfully arrested him.

The officers entered the respondent's apartment without a warrant or consent to arrest him for failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Court of Appeal held that the officers were not protected from civil liability for trespass and false arrest by section 25 of the Criminal Code or the common law, as they lacked legal authorization to enter the dwelling following the Supreme Court's decision in Feeney.

The appeal was dismissed.