4 total
Appeal dismissed; Rule 20 summary judgment test does not apply to motions discharging liens under s. 47.
The appellant registered a construction lien on a property owned by his estranged wife, which was subject to mortgages held by the respondents.
The respondent mortgagees successfully moved to discharge the lien under section 47 of the Construction Lien Act on the basis that it was registered in bad faith.
On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred by not applying the summary judgment test under Rule 20.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge properly exercised his broad discretion under section 47 and was not required to apply Rule 20 since the motion did not seek to dismiss the action.
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered because promissory estoppel cannot be used as a sword to invalidate a mortgage.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment that declared a mortgage null and void based on promissory estoppel.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword, and the respondent had improperly used it to seek a declaration.
The Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial to determine whether there was consideration for the mortgage, as the trial judge had failed to make a finding on that issue.
Consent granted to abolish Deseronto Police Service in favour of OPP contract, subject to conditions.
The Town of Deseronto applied to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services for consent to abolish its municipal police service and enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).
The Commission reviewed the proposed integrated policing arrangement, staffing levels, and facilities.
The Commission found that the proposal would provide adequate and effective police services, provided that an additional full-time officer is added to the municipal complement, a direct emergency telephone is installed at the local office, firm details of the new detachment facility are provided, and severance issues are resolved.
Consent for abolition was granted subject to these conditions.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed due to employer interference in the origination of the petition.
The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.
The union challenged the applicant's status to bring the application, arguing he was not a member in good standing.
The Board found the applicant had status.
However, the Board dismissed the application on the basis that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes, as the applicant had discussed the application with the employer prior to filing and the employer had offered to assist with legal costs, constituting employer interference.
A dissenting Board member would have found the petition voluntary and ordered a vote.
