Thomas Michael Arnold

Consultants retained by multiple landowners to assist in obtaining government approval for urban development entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement providing for hourly fees and a bonus payment upon formal adoption of a Regional Official Plan Amendment.

One landowner purported to terminate the Agreement unilaterally in 2004.

The Regional Official Plan Amendment was adopted in 2009 with all appeals exhausted in 2015.

The consultants commenced an action for the bonus in 2015.

The respondents moved to dismiss on limitation grounds.

The motions judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the appellants argued the termination was ineffective because only collective termination was permitted and that the limitation period had not expired.

The Court of Appeal held that while individual termination was not permitted, the appellants had accepted the anticipatory repudiation through their conduct and inaction over 11 years, thereby accepting the termination and causing the limitation period to expire.

The appellants appealed sentences imposed for violations of the Town of Milton zoning bylaw, specifically for operating retail sales and outdoor storage in a rural A-1 zone, and for parking oversized motor vehicles on agricultural property.

The appellants raised two grounds of appeal: that comments by the Justice of the Peace raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the fines imposed were excessive.

The appeal court dismissed both grounds, finding that while certain comments were inappropriate, they did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed in context, and that the sentences were reasonable and within the appropriate range given the regulatory nature of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

A child protection disposition hearing following a finding that three children were in need of protection due to emotional harm resulting from parental neglect and exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse.

The mother had exposed the children to crack cocaine use, domestic violence with an abusive boyfriend, serious school absences, and neglect of medical and dental needs.

The father sought custody.

The court granted final custody to the father under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the children were thriving in his care and that the mother lacked insight into the harm caused and continued to pose risks through poor judgment and manipulation during access visits.

The court ordered supervised access initially, transitioning to unsupervised weekend and holiday access.

The Crown charged Timur Leckebusch with two counts of unlawfully undertaking development without a permit in a Development Control area under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act: construction of an earthen berm and construction of a retaining wall.

The Crown also charged 819743 Ontario Inc. with unlawfully undertaking development without a permit for construction of an armour stone wall.

The defendants argued that the structures were exempt from the permit requirement as accessory structures to general agricultural development under Ontario Regulation 828.

The court found that the Crown proved the actus reus of all three offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that Leckebusch successfully established the exemption for both the berm and retaining wall on a balance of probabilities, resulting in acquittals on both counts.

The court found that 819743 Ontario Inc. failed to establish the exemption for the armour stone wall and was convicted.