Stéphane Émard-Chabot

The plaintiff hired the defendants to convert a carport into an enclosed garage for $62,000.

The defendants falsely represented that no building permit was required and that the work would comply with applicable codes.

The structure was built without a permit and was structurally deficient.

Upon inspection by a professional engineer, the structure was found to be unfit for purpose and was demolished.

The defendants failed to appear at trial after initially retaining counsel and preparing responding material.

The court struck the defence and proceeded with an uncontested trial.

Judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff for the full contract price, demolition costs, engineering fees, and damages for inconvenience and interference with use of property.

The appellant, Stayside Corporation Inc., appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for specific performance of an agreement to purchase land.

The agreement was conditional on the severance of a 50-acre parcel, which the appellant was responsible for pursuing.

The motion judge found that the appellant had repudiated the agreement by failing to diligently pursue the severance application, despite multiple extensions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding of anticipatory breach, applying the factors from Spirent Communications of Ottawa Limited v. Quake Technologies (Canada) Inc., and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

This endorsement addresses two motions heard by a motions judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant, Stayside Corporation Inc., sought leave for its president, Charles Guilbault, to represent the corporation in its appeal against a summary judgment.

The respondents, Cyndric Group Inc. and Richard Menard, sought security for costs.

The court granted Stayside's motion for representation, finding it in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed as scheduled.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for security for costs, deeming it unjust due to the significant delay in bringing the motion, noting that most appeal costs had already been incurred and an order would effectively deprive the appellant of its day in court.

The Municipalité de Casselman sought a declaratory order confirming its exclusive ownership of the Martin-Filion laneway and an order for the respondents to remove personal property and structures from it.

Two respondents, Louis Godard and Sylvie Cléroux, contested the application, asserting that a verbal agreement with the former mayor in 1986 had transferred ownership of portions of the laneway to them.

The court found no objective evidence of a binding oral contract, citing the absence of essential terms such as a clear transfer date, agreed price, and definitively identified parties.

The court also determined that the doctrine of part performance did not apply, as the respondents' actions on the laneway predated or were independent of the alleged agreement and did not constitute detrimental reliance.

Consequently, the Municipality's application was granted, confirming its ownership and ordering the removal of encroachments.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3, the Tribunal heard a motion to substitute Denise Ménard as a party in place of 3930149 Canada Inc., whose conditional agreement of purchase and sale with Ménard had been cancelled.

With no objections, the Tribunal granted the motion.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 21 individuals representing the public's interest in the overall effect of the OPA.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

Windmill Developments Ltd. brought a motion to dismiss appeals by two individuals against the City of Ottawa's approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a high-rise residential development.

The appellants argued the development did not comply with a policy regarding distance to a transit station and relied on outdated traffic data.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide expert evidence and that their grounds of appeal did not disclose legitimate planning grounds with a reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Solicitor General's decision to build a new correctional facility in Kemptville, alleging violations of the Planning Act.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay, as it was commenced almost two years after the decision was announced, well beyond the 30-day limitation period under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicants had sufficient information to commence proceedings much earlier but chose to pursue political avenues instead.

The court also found that the government suffered substantial prejudice due to the delay, having spent millions of dollars and two years of effort on the project.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the Ministry of the Solicitor General to add several categories of documents to the Record of Proceeding in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenges the decision to build a new correctional facility on a site in Kemptville, alleging violations of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants were seeking impermissible documentary discovery and that the requested documents related to core policy decisions regarding site selection, rather than the justiciable legal issue of whether the decision violated the Planning Act.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for anticipatory breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 to the defendants, including a previous $4,000 award.

The court considered factors such as the outcome, complexity, parties' conduct, and proportionality, reducing the defendants' requested amount due to duplication of effort and the plaintiff's partial success in adding a party, though this success was ultimately deemed a "pyrrhic victory" given the dismissal of the main action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff (Stayside Corporation Inc.) lacked standing under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and that the APS was terminated due to the purchaser's (6773711 Canada Inc.) anticipatory breach.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that a trial was necessary due to factual and credibility issues, and sought to add 6773711 Canada Inc. as a party.

The court granted the order to add 6773711 Canada Inc. as a party, finding special circumstances existed despite the expiry of the limitation period.

However, the court ultimately granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim, concluding that 6773711 Canada Inc.'s prolonged and consistent delays in obtaining the necessary severance amounted to an anticipatory breach of a fundamental term of the APS, justifying its termination.

The court also found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding specific performance, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness, willingness, and ability to close, or that the property was unique.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law passed by the municipality that would permit a multi-residential development on a vacant lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that maintained the required front yard setback and added fencing requirements.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The defendants, Cyndric Group Inc., brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff, Stayside Corporation Inc., on a property subject to an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court granted the discharge of the CPL, finding that the plaintiff failed to prosecute the action with reasonable diligence, which was a sufficient singular ground.

Additionally, the court considered the equities, noting the plaintiff's corporate status (a dissolved numbered company, 677 Canada, being the original party to the agreement, and Stayside's lack of activity) against the defendants' long-standing interest in developing the property.

The court ordered the CPL discharged but imposed a term requiring the defendants to preserve 50 acres of the property pending the outcome of the main action.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum distance separation (MDS) between their vacant lot and a nearby dairy farm to permit the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as the proposed residential use was permitted, compatible with surrounding uses, and would not impede the dairy farm's expansion more than existing proximate residential lots.

The Tribunal authorized the variance.

The appellant, AOD Corporation, appealed the dismissal of its application seeking a declaration that a patent agreement was invalid.

The appellant argued that the agreement required shareholder approval under s. 189(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act and that the indoor management rule did not apply because the respondent, Miramare Investment Incorporated, had knowledge of internal irregularities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the s. 189(3) argument was a new issue raised for the first time on appeal without sufficient evidentiary basis.

The court also upheld the application judge's finding that Miramare had no knowledge of any irregularities, thereby affirming the application of the indoor management rule under common law and s. 18(1) of the CBCA.