Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Petition dismissed: the covenant is a continuing no-build covenant necessary to effect the quid pro quo for the 1995 subdivision and remains useful under current Policy 13-6520; petitioner did not prove obsolescence, lack of practical benefit, or absence of injury to the District under s.35(2)(a),(b) or (d).
Source excerpt
The court found on the totality of the evidence that occupier Darcy Jovic knew of and permitted the ongoing storage, repair and sale of third‑party and unlicensed vehicles at 2616 Viola Place in breach of the Zoning Bylaw; because a bylaw breach was established the court granted declaratory relief and a statutory injunction to prevent future contraventions, but declined to order Jovic to obtain a business licence due to insufficient evidence of his direct commercial operation.
Source excerpt
The petition is dismissed because the SSILTC reasonably concluded development permits were required and reasonably applied its OCP guidelines in refusing the permits; the DFO letter did not legally exempt the Project from permits; the SSILTC had authority to regulate land including intertidal areas and the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy did not render the guidelines inapplicable; the reconsideration hearing met the required standard of fairness. Parties to bear their own costs.
Source excerpt
The court set aside a Township zoning decision refusing West Creek Farms’ site-specific rezoning, finding the reasons unreasonable, but rejected bias, paramountcy, and permitted-use arguments.
The Court of Appeal allowed Kelowna’s appeal and restored two restrictive covenants protecting a future roadway corridor, finding the covenants were not obsolete and cancellation would injure the city.
The Development Officer's decision was reasonable because a higher building does not, as a matter of lawful interpretation, further reduce the horizontal setback intrusion (remains a 3‑foot intrusion into a 6‑foot setback) and the project could reasonably be characterized as an enlargement/reconstruction of a non‑conforming residential structure permitted by ss.254 and 257 of the HRM Charter as implemented by MPS policies (IM‑18, E‑1) and LUB s.23(2); therefore there were no legal or factual grounds to quash the permit.
Source excerpt
The court held that Lorna Vanderhaeghe did not need a new development variance permit before seeking amendments to existing permits, and ordered expedited processing.
The court held Langley’s June 2024 CAC Policy was an ultra vires mandatory amenity payment regime and set it aside; the fairness issue was moot.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging Galiano Island zoning restrictions on residential use of managed forest land, finding the bylaw reasonable and still applicable.
Judicial review of Whistler’s cannabis TUP decision dismissed; the court found no procedural unfairness and held the frontage interpretation was reasonable.
Explore more
