Michael Miller

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff sued for breach of a commercial lease after the defendants sold the property without honouring the plaintiff's right of first refusal.

The defendants argued the action was barred by a one-year contractual limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that whether the discoverability rule applies to a contractual limitation period is a genuine issue for trial, as is the factual question of when the plaintiff ought reasonably to have discovered the breach.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to quash two municipal bylaws regulating dog kennels.

The appellant alleged the bylaws were passed in bad faith, were discriminatory, and acted in restraint of trade.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the applications judge's findings that the bylaws were reasonable, in the public interest, and not passed with illegality.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to amend its pleadings to add a claim for equitable subrogation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that under Rule 26.01, the amendment must be allowed unless there is non-compensable prejudice.

The court held the claim was tenable in law and permitted the amendment without prejudice to the defendants' right to plead a limitation period defence.

The applicants brought a motion for directions and requested an extension of time to deliver their factum on the cross-appeals.

Following the initial reasons, the parties reached an agreement.

On consent, the court ordered the cross-appeals to be scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2003, and extended the time for the applicants to deliver their factum.

The applicants brought a motion for directions concerning cross-appeals by the Township.

They sought a determination that the cross-appeals were moot due to a post-judgment land use agreement, and directions regarding the contents of the Township's appeal book.

The motion judge dismissed the request for a mootness determination, holding that under Rule 61.16(2.2), a motion that finally determines an appeal must be heard by a three-judge panel.

The motion judge granted directions requiring the Township to file a certificate respecting evidence and to include certain omitted materials in a supplementary appeal book.