R.

Two co-defendants were convicted of undertaking a site alteration without a permit contrary to a municipal by-law, having imported a large quantity of gravel to a residential property and graded it to create a commercial truck parking area for a trucking business.

The court imposed fines of $7,500 each — reduced by 25% from the prosecution's request of $10,000 each to account for anticipated remediation costs — and ordered full remediation of the property.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the driveway maintenance exemption under s. 3.4(3) of the by-law was a mitigating factor, finding it inapplicable on the facts.

The court further held that the absence of proven environmental harm is a neutral, not mitigating, factor.

The plaintiff, Sayed Hoq, brought a motion to correct the names of "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" defendants to Lakhwant Singh and CWH Distribution Services Inc. o/a CW Henderson Distribution, respectively, in a multi-vehicle automobile accident claim.

The motion was brought under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for correction of incorrectly named parties if there is no non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the "litigation finger" test, finding the original pleading sufficiently particular for the proposed defendants to know they were the intended targets.

Despite a six-year delay, the court found no non-compensable prejudice, dismissing arguments regarding lost records as speculative and not prejudicial to the defendants.

The motion to correct names was granted.

The parties separated after a 29-year marriage.

The respondent sought equalization and spousal support.

The court found the respondent abandoned her equalization claim by failing to obtain a business valuation for the applicant's company, despite court orders.

However, the court awarded the respondent retroactive and ongoing compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, imputing income to both parties due to the applicant's unreliable financial disclosure and consumer proposal, and the respondent's capacity to earn income.

This trial decision addresses the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement (CA) and associated property claims between common-law spouses.

The Applicant sought to set aside the CA, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation, and lack of meaningful independent legal advice (ILA), and claimed a constructive trust interest in the family home.

The court found that the Applicant was not under duress or undue influence when signing the CA, nor were the property division provisions unconscionable.

The court also determined that the parties' conduct did not repudiate the CA.

The Applicant's claims regarding the CA's validity concerning property rights and her constructive trust claim were dismissed, affirming that property should be divided according to legal title as per the agreement.

The plaintiffs, a real estate agent and his wife, entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy a property from the defendants after making a bully offer.

The plaintiffs later refused to close, alleging the listing agent fraudulently misrepresented the existence of competing offers.

The plaintiffs sued for rescission and punitive damages, and the vendors counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, finding no viable claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or vicarious liability against the vendors.

The court allowed the vendors' counterclaim, finding the plaintiffs breached the contract, and awarded damages based on the difference between the contract price and the ultimate sale price in a falling market, plus carrying costs, less the deposit.