Scott Gallagher

The applicant appealed the Municipality of Bluewater's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a single-detached dwelling using shipping container materials.

The municipality argued the design was industrial and incompatible with the neighbourhood, particularly a nearby heritage property, and that the by-law prohibited shipping containers for human habitation.

The Tribunal found the proposed contemporary design compatible with the eclectic neighbourhood character and determined the by-law prohibited 'as-is' use of shipping containers but not the use of their materials for construction.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the municipality to amend the zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the use of a shipping container as a home.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference where the parties finalized a draft procedural order and issues list.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing and issued the procedural order to govern the proceedings.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting, child support, and spousal support.

The parties agreed on an equal parenting schedule based on a Voice of the Child report.

The primary issue was whether to impute income to the applicant, who had been a stay-at-home parent for many years but had not sought employment since separation.

Applying the principles from Drygala v. Pauli, the court found the applicant was intentionally unemployed and imputed an annual income of $55,000 based on a vocational assessment report.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct across two Notices of Hearing involving substandard treatment, treatment without informed consent, improper billing practices, pervasive recordkeeping failures, deletion of radiographic images, inaccurate information provided to the regulator, and breach of a written undertaking.

The agreed facts described repeated endodontic, restorative, crown and extraction deficiencies affecting numerous patients, together with prior remediation and monitoring that had failed to correct the practice problems.

The panel held that the admitted conduct clearly established professional misconduct, including conduct reasonably regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, immediate revocation of the member's certificate of registration, and costs of $2,500.

Homeowners brought an action against a builder alleging defects in the concrete foundation of their home.

The litigation stalled due to ongoing disputes over the terms under which the defendant’s engineers could inspect and test the foundation.

Despite a prior court order permitting inspection, the plaintiffs repeatedly imposed additional conditions and ultimately refused access, preventing the testing from occurring.

The court found that the plaintiffs had created impediments to the inspection and that the action could not proceed without the testing.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ own engineers extract the core samples and deliver them to the defendant’s experts for testing and required the plaintiffs to pay costs thrown away due to the failed inspection.

In a Building Code Act appeal from an unsafe building order concerning an allegedly structurally deficient residential foundation, the appellant builder sought interim relief compelling access to the homeowners' property for its engineers to take concrete samples.

The court held that, on a section 25 appeal, its remedial jurisdiction is confined to powers the inspector or chief building official could exercise under the statute.

Interpreting sections 15.9 and 18 of the Building Code Act, the court found those provisions authorize inspections and sampling by inspectors and their agents, not compelled access for private parties advancing their own interests.

The requested access order, adjournment, and stay were denied.

No costs were awarded given the novelty of the jurisdictional issue.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion seeking leave to amend three consolidated statements of claim to add allegations of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against a lawyer and a property appraiser involved in mortgage transactions, and to assert that the claims survived bankruptcy under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the amendments introduced a new cause of action after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The court held that the original pleadings alleged negligence only and did not contain the material facts necessary to support allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, including knowledge of falsity or intention to deceive.

Because the proposed amendments introduced a fundamentally different cause of action, the limitation period created a presumption of non‑compensable prejudice.

The motion to amend was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim for breach of contract.

The appellant argued that a preliminary contract was formed when it submitted a proposal, or alternatively, that an oral contract was formed during a phone call.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions that a purchase order was required to form a contract and that the phone call did not constitute offer and acceptance.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for a certificate of pending litigation and specific performance of a real estate agreement.

The agreement was signed by an individual using an unregistered business name 'in trust for a company to be formed'.

The appellant, a pre-existing company, claimed status through a later assignment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the individual violated the Business Names Act and lacked capacity to maintain a proceeding or assign benefits to circumvent the legislation.