R. G. Juriansz J.A.

The appellant appealed a decision declining to quash a municipal by-law.

The municipality had failed to provide proper notification to the appellant that the by-law had been passed.

The application judge found no bad faith on the part of the municipality and no prejudice to the appellant, and thus declined to exercise his discretion under s. 273(1) of the Municipal Act to quash the by-law.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs fixed in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant mother appealed an order reducing her spousal support from $2,200 to $1,150 per month.

The motion judge had imputed income to the appellant after finding she unreasonably failed to complete her nursing program, rejecting her evidence that childcare responsibilities prevented her completion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the competing affidavits raised significant credibility issues that could not be resolved without a trial.

The court directed a trial on the issue of spousal support and reinstated the original support amount in the interim.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their counterclaim against the respondent solicitors for negligence in drafting loan documents and releasing security documents held in escrow.

The motion judge had dismissed the counterclaim on the basis that the appellants had signed a release in favour of the solicitors.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the release was executed in the context of a fee dispute and did not specifically list the matters raised in the counterclaim.

The Court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the scope, operation, and potential unconscionability of the release.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he breached his duty of confidentiality to his former employer by exploiting information related to a government contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the information regarding the contract's renewal and the client's needs was not confidential, as it was widely known and solicited by the government.

Furthermore, the appellant's knowledge of his own skills and qualifications, which he provided to a competing bidder, was his own information and not the property of the respondent.

The action was dismissed.