Canada Case Law

Vancouver (City) v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court found two aspects of the adjudicator's decision unreasonable: (1) it was unreasonable to conclude the City did not need case study addresses to scrutinize Coriolis' financial modelling given the adjudicator accepted Coriolis would cease providing addresses; and (2) it was unreasonable to conclude the pro formas and addresses were not information "about" the owners of the case study properties under s.21(1). The Court set aside the adjudicator's decision in part and remitted the matter to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to reconsider and complete the analyses u…

Source excerpt

• S.17 fippa economic harm
• S.21 fippa third party information
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Remittal to statutory decision-maker

Read case analysis

Zeppa v. Rea

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a s. 137.1 dismissal, holding the action failed at the substantial-merit stage and the costs award stood.

• Anti‑slapp (cja s.137.1)
• Qualified privilege
• Malice
• Costs
• Misfeasance in public office
• Champerty

Read case analysis

R. v. Crawford

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was denied because, although questions of law were raised, they lack importance beyond this case and lack a reasonable prospect of success: the Bylaw regulates non-incidental commercial vehicle parking rather than the conduct of farm businesses and therefore does not fall within ss.481(2) or 552 LGA requiring ministerial approval, and it is not inconsistent with the ALCA in a way that would alter the appellants' convictions.

Source excerpt

• Ultra vires
• Bylaw validity
• Paramountcy
• Ministerial approval
• Leave to appeal test
• Ejusdem generis

Read case analysis

Clearview (Township) v. 12966344 Canada Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal granted a stay pending appeal of an order requiring a fill permit to issue, found the appeal arguable, and ordered it expedited.

• Stay pending appeal
• Ultra vires
• Fill permits
• Obstacle limitation surfaces
• Jurisdictional division
• Irreparable harm

Read case analysis

Hud v. West Nipissing (Municipality)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed an appeal from a scheduling order, holding it was interlocutory and belonged in the Divisional Court. No costs were awarded.

• Scheduling order
• Jurisdiction
• Divisional court
• Summary judgment
• Costs
• Interlocutory-appeals

Read case analysis

Richmond (City) v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The word 'municipality' in the Municipal Exclusion of s.1(1) UCA must be read with the Interpretation Act definition; that definition refers to the incorporated municipal corporation, not to separate local government corporations; therefore wholly owned and wholly operated LGCs are distinct legal entities that fall within the statutory definition of 'public utility' unless the Legislature expressly excludes them, and the BCUC's decision to treat them as public utilities while recommending a class exemption under s.88(3) was correct; the inquiry process afforded participants adequate procedura…

Source excerpt

• Definition of public utility
• Municipal exclusion
• Interpretation act s.29
• Procedural fairness
• Statutory exemption s.88(3)

Read case analysis

Allen v. Khinda

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the statutory‑illegality argument was raised effectively for the first time on appeal and, even if considered, enforcement of the lease would not undermine the integrity of the legal system given the appellant's admitted use of the premises for permitted stabling and residential purposes and her prior reliance on the lease; accordingly the contract is not void for illegality and the trial judge's order for unpaid rent, interest and costs stands.

Source excerpt

• Statutory illegality
• Lease agreement
• Breach of contract
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Possession
• Business licensing

Read case analysis

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Hazelview Investments Inc.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the Board: s.250A(1) requires assessing whether a requested stepback variance materially conflicts with MPS policy, ignoring the Land Use By-law by virtue of the 'notwithstanding' language; the development officer bore the onus to prove a material conflict and failed to do so on the record, so the Board did not err in ordering the variance granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Variance
• Municipal planning strategy
• Land use by-law
• Stepback requirement
• Onus of proof
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

West Vancouver (District of) v. Este

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The District proved on a balance of probabilities that Dr. Este committed repeated contraventions of Building Bylaw No. 4400 (unpermitted construction, tampering with Stop Work Orders, obstructing inspectors and occupying without final occupancy approval). There were no exceptional circumstances to deny relief. Because the Demolition Order and related issues have been finally adjudicated on judicial review, the alleged new evidence does not raise a triable issue sufficient to convert the petition into an action or to reopen the prior determinations. Accordingly a permanent statutory injunctio…

Source excerpt

• Community charter s.274 injunctions
• Building bylaws and permits
• Remedial action requirement (demolition)
• Judicial review and finality
• Service of process
• Recusal and apprehension of bias

Read case analysis

Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed CHP’s appeal, finding the City of Hamilton’s refusal of a transit-shelter advertisement was procedurally fair and reasonable.

• Procedural fairness (baker)
• Reasonableness review (vavilov)
• Doré/loyola proportionality balancing
• Transit advertising policy
• Allegations of bias
• Harm to vulnerable groups/transgender issues

Read case analysis