Robert H. Karrass

The Town of Wasaga Beach applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Lake Simcoe Jet Ski Rentals from operating a business without a licence in contravention of municipal By-law 2019-26.

The respondent's business licence was revoked on July 3, 2025, but the respondent continued operations, claiming it no longer carried on business within the Town's jurisdiction.

The respondent argued its operations were limited to the Nottawasaga River and Georgian Bay, which are federally regulated waterways beyond municipal jurisdiction.

The court found that the respondent carried on business partly within the Town, as renters accessed the dock via property at 72 Main Street, Wasaga Beach, and the Town's geographic limits extend to the middle of the river under the Territorial Division Act, 2002.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of by-law breach with no exceptional circumstances warranting denial.

This endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses a request for directions regarding its prior decision.

The respondent sought clarification, arguing the previous decision might have inadvertently set aside parts of the application judge's order that were not appealed or were abandoned.

The court clarified that its decision to set aside the application judge's order was due to identified errors affecting lien rights and PPSA registration.

It affirmed that the appellants (respondents in this endorsement) did not abandon any relief sought in their notice of appeal and factum, including payment for storage/rental costs intertwined with repairs.

The court confirmed the appellants' possessory lien over the aircraft, encompassing both repair and storage/rental costs, and remitted these intertwined issues to the Superior Court for determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed the appeal, set aside the application judge’s order, and remitted certain issues for trial, declaring that the appellants had a possessory lien.

The appellants, having prevailed on the appeal and related motions, were awarded all-inclusive costs for the appeal, a panel motion, three pre-appeal motions, and the original application, totaling $143,977.79.

The appellants appealed an order vacating their possessory lien on an aircraft under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The application judge had erred by vacating the lien without fully determining whether the repair work was authorized and if any amounts were owing, despite acknowledging that litigation on these issues was possible.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge failed to make necessary findings and improperly applied the RSLA.

The appeal was allowed, the original order set aside, and the appellants' possessory lien was declared to exist until further court order, with the issues of authorization and amounts owing remitted to trial.

The appellant appealed from the parenting schedule established by the trial judge following an 11-day trial.

The trial judge had ordered that the respondent have greater contact with their four-year-old daughter, including extended overnight visits during weekends and holidays.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in failing to follow the expert assessor's recommendations for a gradual increase in overnight and holiday access, and that the child was distressed by the current schedule.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence from a clinical psychologist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in crafting a reasonable parenting schedule that reflected the best interests of the child while accounting for the toxic relationship between the parties.

The applicants sought to transfer their Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court under simplified procedure and amend their pleadings to reflect significantly increased damages discovered after the initial claim.

The respondents opposed, arguing the new damages were discoverable earlier and allowing the amendment would circumvent limitation periods.

The court granted the transfer to Superior Court, allowing amendment, but preserved the respondents' right to challenge claims falling outside the limitation period.

The plaintiff brought a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion seeking a determination that the defendant breached a mutual full and final release by applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board after the settlement.

The defendant cross‑moved for a determination that the release was not breached and that the action should be dismissed.

The court held that the release barred claims for contribution and indemnity against others but did not preclude an application to the Board under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Such an application is a claim against a statutory compensation fund rather than a claim against another person or corporation.

The defendant’s motion was granted, the plaintiff’s motion dismissed, and costs awarded to the defendant.

The accused, a 23-year-old international student from China, sought judicial interim release on eight criminal charges including criminal harassment, assault, sexual assault, break and enter with intent, unlawful confinement, and possession of a weapon.

The accused had previously been released on bail with no-contact conditions but allegedly breached those conditions by communicating with the complainant after his father departed Canada.

The court imposed publication bans under sections 486.4 and 517(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights to reasonable bail are fundamental, the secondary ground for detention—protection of the public and the complainant—was not adequately addressed by the proposed release plan.

The court denied bail and ordered the accused detained.