Richard A. Wellenreiter

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged zoning and sign by-law infractions by the respondents' moving business.

The respondents operated their business from a property zoned for agricultural use, claiming it was a permitted 'home occupation'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the business activities, which were largely conducted off-site, did not contravene the zoning by-law.

The court also found no sign by-law infraction, as the municipality had granted exceptions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, supervised access, child and spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The respondent father's pleadings had been struck for failure to make financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole custody and ordered that the father's access be supervised due to his untreated sex addiction and recent involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

Based on expert evidence, the father's income was imputed at $248,500.

The court ordered ongoing child and spousal support, fixed support arrears at $162,105, and ordered an equalization payment of $57,753.85.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the moving parties sought full indemnity costs fixed at $33,000 based on alleged misconduct by the opposing party and a prior settlement offer.

The court held that the opposing party’s conduct did not warrant sanction and that the purported settlement offer did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer and was not a genuine attempt to resolve the litigation.

The court found the claimed costs disproportionate to the amount at stake and the work required.

Applying a reasonable proportionality assessment, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $9,000.

A law firm sued the parents of a former client seeking payment of approximately $84,000 in legal fees incurred in the client’s family law litigation.

The parents brought a motion for summary judgment arguing they were not contractually bound to pay the fees.

The plaintiff alleged the parents had provided an indemnity based on their conduct and statements during meetings that were tape recorded.

The court held that the evidence, including the retainer agreement, written acknowledgements, and transcripts of the meetings, did not establish that the parents had undertaken an indemnity or guarantee to the law firm.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court, arguing that the motion judge misapprehended the Minutes of Settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no such misapprehension, and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.