In Tiny Township Association of Responsible STR Owners v. Tiny (Township), the Court dismissed an appeal from an application judge’s decision regarding the validity of a By-Law that regulated short-term rentals. The Court upheld the application judge’s finding that the STR By-law was intra vires of the Township’s licensing power and appropriately considered the economic, social and environmental well-being of community.
In B.M. v. Ontario, the Court granted intervener status to four of the six applicants. The appellants seek to certify a class action against Ontario and Canada on behalf of all indigenous children off-reserve who have been apprehended by a children’s aid society or have encountered other barriers to essential social services from 1992 to the present.
In MacEwen v. Daljit, the Court allowed an appeal from an order setting aside the parties’ domestic contract under s. 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act. The hearing judge had found that the Wife engaged in trickery and dishonestly changed certain paragraphs, but the Court held that this finding could not stand. The Husband had not alleged any such misconduct against the Wife and she was not on notice of such allegations. Furthermore, there were no personal vulnerabilities or inequality of bargaining power that justified setting aside the contract. The domestic contract was therefore restored.
In Starra v. Starra, the Court dismissed the appeal from an order varying and ultimately terminating spousal support following the respondent’s retirement. The Court held that the motion judge was entitled to conclude that the compensatory component of support would be satisfied within a two-year transition period, having considered the parties’ long-term marriage, the appellant’s health issues, the evidence of family violence, the respondent’s retirement, and the parties’ similar net worth. The Court also upheld the refusal to award retroactive support, finding no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the respondent had no ongoing disclosure obligations, the appellant had legal advice throughout the relevant period, and a retroactive award would cause significant hardship to the respondent.
The Court dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment that dismissed a realtor’s claim to a commission arising from a failed commercial real estate transaction. The Court found that the motion judge made no reviewable error in interpreting the contractual documents, holding that the “TBD” designation in the Buyer Representation Agreement failed to establish a binding commission obligation on the buyer, that the buyer was not a party to the separate Commission Agreement between the seller and the brokerage, and that the Revised Co-op Agreement identified only the seller as responsible for commission payment. Applying a deferential standard of review per Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., the appeal was dismissed.