Michael A. van Bodegom

The appellants sought access to the back of their property across a grassy strip of city-owned land bordering a cul-de-sac.

The city council denied the request.

The application judge ruled the appellants had no right of access but found the city's process was tainted by bad faith and ordered a new hearing.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the grassy strip was not part of the public road, dismissing the appellants' appeal.

The Court allowed the city's cross-appeal, finding the application judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly applied adjudicative procedural fairness standards to an elected municipal council.

The City of Waterloo applied for judicial review of two orders made by delegates of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which required the City to disclose the total dollar amount of its legal bills.

The City argued the adjudicators exceeded their jurisdiction by failing to find the records were protected by solicitor-client privilege under s. 12 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the adjudicators correctly decided the cases on their facts rather than on inapplicable hypothetical scenarios.

The appellant City of Waterloo appealed a trial decision finding that a competing bidder, Xterra, failed to comply with the material terms of a municipal tender.

The trial judge concluded that the requirement to submit a bid including only the base bid was a material term, and that Xterra's failure to follow this instruction constituted non-compliance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision involved a mixed question of fact and law, and rejected the appellant's argument that the standard of review was correctness.

The appellants registered construction liens against the respondent's property for the design and installation of a custom-designed truck frame assembly line.

The trial judge held that the assembly line did not meet the definition of an 'improvement' under the Construction Lien Act, as it was portable and not an integral part of the building.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determination that the assembly line was not an improvement.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Construction Lien Act.

The proposed intervenor sought to provide evidence on the economic impact of the court's decision on the auto parts manufacturing industry.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence and argument would not contribute to the understanding and determination of the legal issues under appeal.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent electrical subcontractor $45,000 for loss of profits due to breach of contract.

The appellant had carried the respondent's bid in its tender but later refused to use the respondent, demanding 100% performance bonds which the respondent could not obtain.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable objection to contracting with the respondent and was not entitled to demand 100% bonding when the prime contract only required 50%.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of the Income Tax Act and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in First Vancouver Finance v. Canada.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, expressing substantial agreement with the trial judge's reasons.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $8,000.