In Nexus Solutions Inc. v. Krougly, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent’s competing software was not developed "in the course of" his employment under s. 13(3) of the Copyright Act, as his actual responsibilities were limited to the development of his employer’s existing software. The Court affirmed that the proper test under s. 13(3) turns on what the employer actually assigned to the employee, not what it theoretically could have directed the employee to do. In this case, the employee developed the competing software on his own time, while fulfilling his employment duties. Accordingly, it could not be said that the employer had paid for the development of the software such that it could claim ownership of it.
The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City) concerned the City of Hamilton's rejection of a political advertisement submitted by the Christian Heritage Party of Canada for city-owned transit shelters. The advertisement was rejected by the City on the grounds that it posed a tangible risk to its statutory objective of providing a safe and welcoming transit system. The CHP sought judicial review, arguing that the city breached procedural fairness, acted unreasonably and exhibited bias. The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the City's decision was both fair and reasonable. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the City provided CHP with adequate opportunity to participate, properly balanced freedom of expression against the City's duty to provide a safe transit system, and engaged in a robust proportionality analysis consistent with the Doré/Loyola framework.
In Murray-Leung v. Dyck, the Court upheld a finding that the respondents had established a preive easement over a driveway encroaching onto the appellants’ property based on continuous, open, and unchallenged use without permission prior to the 1997 conversion to the Land Titles Act system.