Neil Cameron Murkar

The applicant, Kathleen Ingram, commenced an application seeking dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act and an interest in the estate via constructive/resulting trust.

The respondent, Cherise Charron, in her capacity as estate trustee, brought a motion to dismiss Ingram's claims as statute-barred.

The court found that Ingram's dependant support claim was not entirely statute-barred, as a small portion of the estate remained undistributed.

Crucially, the court held that Ingram's constructive trust claim was governed by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the 2-year period under the Trustee Act, following the principle of horizontal stare decisis and the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in McConnell v. Huxtable.

Charron's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The appellants sought to overturn a motion judge's assessment of damages and obtain relief from forfeiture of a $400,000 deposit after failing to close a property purchase.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the vendor was entitled to the full damages, and that the deposit was commercially reasonable, not disproportionate to actual damages, and there was no unconscionability or inequality of bargaining power to warrant relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiffs, including 1854329 Ontario Inc. and individual owners, brought a motion for summary judgment to claim a $400,000 deposit after the defendants, Angelo Cairo and Stouffville Glass Mirror and Aluminum 2012 Inc., failed to close a $7.25 million industrial property purchase.

The transaction failed due to the defendants' financing falling through, which they attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court previously dismissed the individual plaintiffs' claims but found the corporate plaintiff liable for breach of contract.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of damages and whether to grant equitable relief from forfeiture of the full deposit.

The court calculated the corporate plaintiff's actual damages at $234,849.18, including reduced sale price, increased realtor fees, additional legal expenses, and lost time value of money.

The court found no unconscionability to relieve the defendants from forfeiture of the full $400,000 deposit, noting the thin evidence of COVID-19 causation, the defendants' decision to waive financing conditions despite pandemic awareness, and lack of evidence regarding post-breach negotiations.

Summary judgment was granted to 1854329 Ontario Inc. for the full deposit amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment in an action arising from a failed $7.25 million commercial real estate transaction.

The defendants failed to close due to lack of financing but argued the agreement was invalid and the seller's closing documents were deficient.

The court found the matter appropriate for summary judgment on liability but declined to grant partial summary judgment for the deposit, as the defendants' request for relief from forfeiture was intertwined with the overall damages claim.

The court granted summary judgment on liability in favour of the corporate plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the valid agreement.

The individual plaintiffs' claims were dismissed for lack of standing as they were not parties to the contract.

The appellants appealed a judgment prohibiting them from depositing additional fill on their property and requiring them to remove deposited fill to comply with an approved drainage and grading drawing.

They argued procedural unfairness, limitation periods, and an exemption under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness or limitation period violation, and agreeing with the application judge that the appellants' operations did not resemble a normal farming operation.

The court also dismissed the appellants' application to file fresh evidence and awarded costs to the respondents.

The applicants sought permanent injunctive relief arising from extensive dumping of fill on rural property without the required permits and contrary to municipal by-laws, the Building Code Act, planning controls, and Oak Ridges Moraine legislation.

The responding parties argued the material was only topsoil intended for a future tree nursery and said the activity was protected as an agricultural use.

The court held the evidence established massive unauthorized fill placement, substantial alteration of grade and drainage, and conduct far more akin to a commercial fill operation than a normal farming practice.

The asserted future farming use and business licence did not excuse non-compliance, and no application had been made to the Normal Farm Practice Protection Board.

Permanent injunctive and related relief were granted.

Following the release of its reasons on appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The successful respondent, the Municipality of Clarington, was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed an order permanently enjoining them from operating a scrap yard and storing white goods on their property, arguing they had a legal non-conforming use.

On appeal, they raised new arguments based on the Supreme Court's decision in Saint-Romuald and accessory use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that these issues were not raised at trial and the evidentiary record was incomplete, making it unfair to the municipality to order a new trial.

The appellant appealed an order regarding notice under the Building Code Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to notify the municipality of his change of address as required by the Assessment Act, and that the municipality had complied with the notice provision under s. 27(2) of the Building Code Act.

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a municipality's road-closing by-laws and related dealings with an adjoining landowner near Lake Ontario.

He alleged the segmented by-laws were used to avoid ministerial approval for closing a road leading to a lake and argued that a perpetual grading easement was effectively a sale that had to be offered to him as the abutting owner.

The court rejected both arguments, finding no evidentiary foundation for allegations of bad faith and holding that the easement did not trigger statutory sale rights.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.