Ryan Bodnar

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant anticipatorily breached the agreement of purchase and sale after the property's value declined due to rising interest rates.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejecting the defendant's vague allegations of misrepresentation.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the shortfall in the resale price, with slight reductions to the claimed real estate commission and legal fees.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for $30,000 against the respondents.

The appellant sought indemnification for legal costs incurred in defending a separate, unrelated lawsuit, relying on a Memorandum of Settlement and release signed with the respondents.

He also claimed damages for negligence and mental distress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the principles of contract interpretation from Sattva and Corner Brook to conclude the indemnity did not cover unforeseeable future claims.

The court also upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the negligence claim due to a lack of evidence establishing a standard of care, and found no error in the discretionary assessment of costs.

The moving party, a towing company, sought a stay of a decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal confirming the cancellation of its commercial vehicle operator's registration pending an appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety rating and the safety records of related parties involved in an unclosed sale of the business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the public interest in highway safety outweighed the potential financial harm to the moving party.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant towing company appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar issued the order based on the appellant's poor safety record, which included collisions and out-of-service defects, and its affiliations with individuals and corporations that had previously had their CVOR certificates cancelled for safety concerns.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was related to these individuals through direct or indirect control and management.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the cancellation order.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a four-unit apartment dwelling on an interior lot.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted unchallenged expert planning evidence that the amendment and proposed site plan represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policy.

The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal conditional upon the execution and registration of a final site plan control agreement.

The appellants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the redevelopment of lands for an open pit gold mine operation.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included minor amendments to the Zoning By-law to adjust the boundary of the Mining Zone and its associated buffer.

Based on uncontested expert planning and surveying evidence, the Tribunal found the amended by-law consistent with provincial policy and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and dismissed the official plan appeal on consent.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to exercise a five percent road reservation on his property pursuant to the Public Lands Act.

The applicant argued that the Minister miscalculated the land available, acted for an improper purpose, and denied him procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had broad discretion under the Act, the decision to ensure public access was reasonable, and the applicant was afforded adequate consultation and reasons.