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
Injunction application dismissed. The court found a serious question on an implied-term parking claim, but no proven irreparable harm and the balance favored the landlord.
The Court held the Board did not err in law: in context the undefined term "intensive" in Policy 4.5.24(c) reasonably refers to focused, facility-based livestock activity (barns/feedlots/manure facilities) rather than intermittent outdoor pasturing; evidence showed the Pasture's use was seasonal and not intensive, the LUB's definitions and separation rules support that interpretation, and the Board properly accepted the Traffic Impact Study approved by the Department of Public Works; accordingly the Council's approval reasonably carried out the intent of the MPS and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Motion for a stay was dismissed because, although the appeal raised a serious issue, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured enforcing the municipal zoning by‑law given the presumptive public interest in law enforcement; appeal to be expedited and successful party awarded costs of $10,000.
Source excerpt
The court ordered demolition of unauthorized structures in Surrey, finding they were built without permits, exceeded bylaw limits, and could not be retroactively legalized.
The court granted the City’s petition to enforce its bylaws against an unauthorized addition built without permits and despite stop-work notices.
Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because no genuine issue of material fact existed on the de facto expropriation claim: the evidence did not establish acquisition by HRM of a beneficial interest nor the removal of all reasonable uses of the lands; the motions judge misapplied Rule 13.04 and erred by treating motive and alleged 'creative' interpretations as material to the de facto expropriation test, therefore summary judgment dismissing the claim was appropriate.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court allowed judicial review, quashed ISED’s finding that tower consultation was complete, and required Bragg to redo the consultation steps.
The court dismissed a petition challenging a Victoria zoning bylaw amendment and development permit, finding the statutory challenge out of time and the City’s OCP decision reasonable.
The Court of Appeal held the Board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the sufficiency of the Board’s reasons constitutes a question of law subject to a reasonableness standard; the Board’s reasons, read with the record and interpretive aids, were sufficient and the Board’s conclusion that the accessory structure did not exceed a single storey was a defensible, reasonable outcome, so the Supreme Court judge erred in remitting the matter to the Board and the Board’s decision was affirmed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the application judge erred by treating the development officer's 2000 refusal as a misrepresentation that insulated the respondents from the statutory six-month discontinuance rule; the Development Authority accepted the refusal, filed a commercial-only permit, and by not appealing abandoned any claim to a residential non-conforming use, so the respondents must be enjoined from residential use of the premises.
Source excerpt
Explore more
