4 total
The court granted a declaration for a possessory lien over a helicopter but dismissed motions for security.
The court considered motions for security for costs and for summary judgment regarding a possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) in a dispute over helicopter repairs.
Mansfield Heliflight Inc. sought security for costs from USCAN Aviation Sales Ltd., while USCAN cross-moved for summary judgment to confirm its possessory lien and for an order requiring Mansfield to provide security.
The court dismissed the security for costs motion, finding USCAN had a good chance of partial success and that the defendant conceded some amount was owing.
The court granted a declaration that USCAN has a possessory lien over the helicopter, but declined to order Mansfield to pay security into court, maintaining the status quo until the amount of the lien is determined.
Building permit for riding arena reinstated; CBO's interpretation of zoning by-law owed deference.
The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a building permit issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) for the construction of a riding arena on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The appeal judge had found that the arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that the CBO failed to consider the Official Plan's major development policies.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard instead of reasonableness to the CBO's interpretation of the home by-law.
The Court found the CBO's conclusion that the arena was a permitted principal agricultural building was reasonable and correct.
Furthermore, the Court held that conformity with the Official Plan is not 'other applicable law' under the Building Code Act that would justify refusing a permit.
Motion to introduce fresh evidence on appeal dismissed as the evidence was not necessary.
The respondents in an appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding subsequent actions the Township proposed to take to remedy inconsistencies in its zoning by-laws.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the potential remedial work by the Township would not assist in interpreting the by-law under review.
The court held that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for fresh evidence, as it was not necessary to deal fairly with the issues on appeal and declining to admit it would not lead to a substantial injustice.
Appeal of order dismissing jurisdiction and forum non conveniens motion dismissed; no palpable and overriding errors.
The appellant, a Québec corporation, appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay proceedings brought by the respondent, an Ontario corporation, on the basis of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
The dispute involved a contract for the importation and sale of chicken.
The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's findings that the contract was made in Ontario, the appellant carried on business in Ontario, and there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario.
The appeal was dismissed.
