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
BCSC held an easement allowed stopping, loading, unloading and limited parking for construction access, dismissed trespass claims, and found the Cooks liable for nuisance.
The court amended the entered order to reflect Justice Wilson’s intention, granting liberty to apply on monetary relief and rejecting the respondent’s proposed dismissal amendment.
The Court found the Plaintiff not sufficiently credible and the evidence insufficient to establish an oral contract or proprietary estoppel giving the Plaintiff a 50% interest; the Defendant was determined to be the sole owner of the Cabin as a chattel; the Plaintiff was ordered to pay $9,000 to the Defendant being half the insurance indemnity she received without an insurable interest; the Plaintiff's declaration claim was dismissed and the Court directed further steps on costs and limited efforts to locate the Plaintiff's other personal items.
Source excerpt
The court refused broad declaratory and s. 86 Trustee Act relief in an estate dispute, and declined a sweeping order for estate document disclosure.
The court held the strata plan contained an error and ordered steps to rectify it so the retaining wall could be designated as common property.
The court referred a lease-interpretation petition to the trial list, finding the dispute was not solely about construction and required fuller pleadings and evidence.
The court dismissed a summary trial and security for costs application in a strata-related joint venture dispute, finding the key payment issue could not be fairly decided on affidavit evidence alone.
The Restrictive Covenants are not enforceable by the Applicant against the Respondents because the covenants fail the reciprocity requirement of a building scheme: the document and surrounding context vest the developer with unilateral discretionary powers to waive or modify covenants and do not demonstrate that the restrictions were intended to be mutually binding on and for the benefit of all lot owners, so the four requisites for inter‑purchaser enforcement are not met (Moorhouse analysis applied).
Source excerpt
The application judge did not err in finding the appellant's $10,000,000 unconditional offer was not a "like amount" to the respondents' $15.3 million conditional offer; absent expert evidence supporting the appellant's asserted price adjustments based on development costs, it was reasonable to refuse to equate the two offers; appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed to vary the judgment to extinguish the option on completion and direct removal of instruments from title.
Source excerpt
The Court held the large-scale commercial aggregate extraction is not a permitted use under the 2006 zoning by-law and is not a legal non-conforming use because historical extraction was minor, incidental to the property's character as a municipal park, and the current operation changes the type/character of use; the appeal was dismissed and appellate costs awarded to the respondent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
