COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO‑MEDONTE, HARRY EVANS, SHIRLEY EVANS, HOWARD LEAKE, PAULINE LEAKE, KRIS MENZIES, PETER MEPHAM, LINDA MEPHAM, LUIGI DE FRANCESCO, CHRIS CHAPMAN, DOUG CAMPBELL, KIM CAMPBELL, JAMES C. MEPHAM, 622173 ONTARIO LIMITED, JACK McKEOWN, YVONNE McKEOWN, MIKE DAHONICK and RITA DAHONICK (Appellants) -and- NADIA DROHIBYCKY on behalf of herself and all others who have an interest in the property described as Blocks A, B and C and westerly 10 feet throughout of Lot 33, Plan 709, Township of Oro‑Medonte, County of Simcoe (Respondent)

DOCKET: C41328

AND RE:

NADIA DROHIBYCKY on behalf of herself and all others who have an interest in the property described as Blocks A, B and C and westerly 10 feet throughout of Lot 33, Plan 709, Township of Oro‑Medonte, County of Simcoe (Applicant/Respondent) -and-

TOWNSHIP OF ORO‑MEDONTE, HARRY EVANS, SHIRLEY EVANS, HOWARD LEAKE, PAULINE LEAKE, KRIS MENZIES, PETER MEPHAM, LINDA MEPHAM, LUIGI DE FRANCESCO, CHRIS CHAPMAN, DOUG CAMPBELL, KIM CAMPBELL, JAMES C. MEPHAM, 622173 ONTARIO LIMITED, JACK McKEOWN, YVONNE McKEOWN, MIKE DAHONICK and RITA DAHONICK (Respondents/Appellants)

BEFORE:

CATZMAN, LASKIN and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Christopher J. Williams, Eileen Costello and Cleo C. Kirkland

for the appellant in C41318/respondent in C41328

The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte

Christopher J. Tzekas

for the appellants in C41328/respondents in C41318

Evans, Leake, Menzies, Mepham, De Francesco, Chapman, Campbell, 622173 Ontario Limited, McKeown and Dahonick

Brian M. Morris and Justin M. Jakubiak

for the respondent in C41318/applicant (respondent) in C41328

Nadia Drohibycky

HEARD AND ENDORSED:

February 10, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Hugh M. O’Connell of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 31, 2003.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Minutes of settlement were filed today with the court. On consent, this appeal is allowed in accordance with those minutes. In allowing the appeal on consent, we are not to be considered to have passed any judgment on the merits of the decision of O’Connell J.