R. Uukkivi

The defendants brought a second motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff against a residential property.

The defendants argued that new facts, including the plaintiff's rejection of a 'with prejudice' settlement offer and new evidence of financial hardship, justified the discharge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were improperly attempting to relitigate issues already decided on the first discharge motion and appeal.

The court held that the new evidence did not meet the exceptional circumstances test to overcome res judicata, and the equitable factors continued to favour maintaining the CPL.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to issue a building permit for a waste processing facility.

The applicant argued the facility was not a permitted 'Dry Industry' use and lacked required municipal service connections.

The Superior Court of Justice found the applicant had standing and upheld the CBO's reasonable determination that the facility was a permitted use.

However, the court modified the building permit to mandate that the facility be fully connected to municipal water and sewer services prior to occupancy, as required by the zoning by-law.