Michael A. van Bodegom

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against a lawyer for conversion, breach of trust, and money had and received arising from a mortgage transaction.

The trial judge found the lawyer acted for the mortgagee, not the appellant, and had authorization from the appellant's solicitor to disburse the funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant could not raise a new argument regarding the sufficiency of authorization on appeal, and that the trial judge made no errors in principle regarding evidentiary rulings on bankruptcy documentation or the costs award.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review regarding a municipal licensing by-law, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent City sought partial indemnity costs of $12,500, while the applicant argued for a maximum of $5,000.

The court noted that while the applicant was unsuccessful, it acted in good faith and the City could have avoided the litigation through better communication and practical assurances regarding the grandfathering of the applicant's buildings.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the respondent.

The Waterloo Region District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding interest to Erbsville Road Development Inc. on expropriated land from the date of draft subdivision approval, rather than the later date of actual expropriation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 33(1) of the Expropriations Act, interest can accrue from a date preceding expropriation when the owner ceases to make productive use of the land due to the impending expropriation.

The court found the board member's determination that productive use ceased upon draft approval was reasonable.

The applicant, a corporate landlord, sought judicial review to quash the City of Waterloo's Residential Rental Housing Licensing By-law.

The applicant argued the licensing fees constituted an ultra vires indirect tax and that the by-law's application to townhouses but not apartment buildings constructively discriminated against families contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the fees were validly enacted to fund the licensing program and did not constitute a tax.

The Court also held the by-law did not discriminate on the basis of family status, as it targeted specific types of dwellings rather than any protected group.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's requirement to obtain residential rental licences for its buildings.

The applicant argued its buildings were exempt as 'Apartment Buildings' under the by-law and objected to a statutory declaration requiring confirmation of compliance with provincial statutes, arguing they did not apply retroactively.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the buildings did not meet the conjunctive definition of an apartment building, and that the statutory declaration only required compliance with provincial laws to the extent they actually applied to the grandfathered buildings.

The appellants guaranteed a loan made by the respondent to a retirement residence developer.

When the developer defaulted, the respondent sued the appellants on the guarantee and obtained summary judgment.

On appeal, the appellants argued they were released from liability because the loan terms were materially altered without their consent, specifically by converting the fixed-term loan to a demand loan and entering a forbearance agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge failed to consider the totality of the evidence regarding material alterations and applied the incorrect test for prejudice.

The summary judgment was set aside and the matter referred to trial on the defences of material alteration and laches.

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.