Patrick Joseph Kraemer

The appellant municipality appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a remedial order issued against the respondent property owner for violating a property standards by-law regarding external lighting.

The appeal judge had found the order overly broad and the by-law impermissibly retrospective.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the by-law was prospective in requiring future compliance and clearly intended to affect vested rights.

The Court also found the remedial order was not overly broad, though it amended the wording slightly to conform to the by-law by adding the word 'likely'.

The remedial order was reinstated as amended.

The parties separated shortly after the respondent's employment was terminated.

He received a severance package that included common law damages and Employment Standards Act (ESA) severance.

The trial judge held that the ESA severance portion had fully accrued before the marriage and was therefore property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal on this issue, holding that an employee has no right or entitlement to ESA severance until their employment is terminated without notice.

Therefore, the uncrystallized ESA severance was not property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The appeal was dismissed on all other grounds relating to business valuation, household items, and imputed income.