Thomas A. Cline

The respondent contractor was charged with operating a pit without a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act after excavating sand from a farmer's land to level knolls and improve the farmland.

The justice of the peace and the summary conviction appeal judge acquitted the respondent, finding the Act was not intended to regulate farm improvement projects.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the excavation fell squarely within the statutory definition of a pit, the Act contains no exemption for farm betterment projects, and the licensing requirement applies to the on-site operator.

The respondent municipality gave notice of termination of a 1999 lease to the appellant soccer park corporation.

The respondent offered a new lease for the same property, but with a shorter term and a requirement that the appellant contribute to maintenance costs.

The 1999 lease required the respondent to provide another reasonably similar soccer facility at another location at its own expense upon termination.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to comply with these clear terms, rendering the termination invalid.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the validity of a Township fence bylaw, arguing it conflicted with the Region's zoning bylaw and therefore could not restrain the height of their fence.

The Court of Appeal found no conflict, noting the lands were zoned 'lakeshore' rather than 'residential', and the zoning bylaw's provisions on accessory uses explicitly excluded boundary fences.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The respondents sought to expand their hog farming operation and obtained provincial approval for a nutrient management plan, which required a 100-metre setback from a municipal well.

The appellant municipality had passed a zoning by-law prohibiting intensive livestock operations within a larger two-year capture zone to protect groundwater.

The municipality argued the by-law enhanced provincial standards, while the respondents argued the provincial regulation superseded the by-law under s. 61 of the Nutrient Management Act.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 61 displaced the common law 'impossibility of dual compliance' test.

The Court found that both the regulation and the by-law addressed the same subject matter—the regulation of livestock operations and nutrient management—rendering the municipal by-law inoperative.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the respondent's use of property for horse-related activities was a legal non-conforming use under the zoning by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's findings were supported by the record and that section 45(2) of the Planning Act did not apply.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the application judge erred in denying costs based on pre-litigation conduct.

The appellants appealed a judgment restraining use of storm-damaged lakefront property for cottage purposes after rezoning to hazard lands.

The central issue was whether a legal non-conforming use survived where the prior owners ceased occupancy after severe storm damage and decided not to rebuild.

The court held that continuation under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act requires both intention to continue the use and continuation of actual use so far as possible in the circumstances.

The prior owners had abandoned the cottage use, breaking the chain of continuity.

The appeal was dismissed, with only a formal amendment removing the word 'interlocutory' from the injunction.