Sarah Zakir

The moving party municipality brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the responding party from dumping large volumes of fill on its property in contravention of a fill control by-law and a stop work order.

The responding party argued its activities fell under a 'landscaping' exception and that the by-law fees were ultra vires.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried that the massive volume of fill did not constitute landscaping, presuming irreparable harm to the public interest, and concluding the balance of convenience favoured enforcing the democratically enacted by-law.

The applicant sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to lift a Site Alteration Order issued by the respondent, which prohibited the importation of 500,000 m³ of fill for a proposed berm on its property.

The applicant argued the berm constituted landscaping and fell under an exception to the respondent's Fill Control By-law.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to meet the higher standard for a mandatory injunction, did not demonstrate irreparable harm (as it was the author of its own misfortune by proceeding without legal certainty), and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to potential environmental damage and remediation costs.

The applicant's undertaking as to damages was also deemed inadequate.

The parties advised the court that the matter had been settled.

On consent, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant brought motions for a stay pending appeal of a trial judge's order dividing family assets, an extension of time to perfect the appeal, and consolidation of appeals from interlocutory orders.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The motion to consolidate was dismissed because the appellant had not obtained leave to appeal the interlocutory orders.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The respondent's cross-motion for security for costs was dismissed as the appeal was not frivolous and the appellant had sufficient assets.