Alan R. Patton

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

The appellants appealed a decision confirming that the composition of the County Council should be reduced from 20 to 16 members due to a decline in the number of electors in four townships.

The Court of Appeal held that the municipal by-law governing representation implicitly required a reduction in representatives when a township's population fell below the specified threshold.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's decision to nullify the Striking by-law and remove the additional representatives mid-term, as they had no legal entitlement to hold office.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of London passed an interim control by-law freezing land development along a specific corridor after discussing the matter in two closed meetings.

A property owner applied to quash the by-law, arguing the closed meetings violated the open meeting requirement under section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Planning Act provisions allowing interim control by-laws to be passed without prior notice or hearing do not create an exception to the open meeting requirement.

The Court upheld the decision to quash the by-law for illegality, emphasizing the importance of transparency and democratic legitimacy in municipal decision-making.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeal of a minor variance without a full hearing.

The Board had found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and concluding that the Board did not err in law in its assessment of the evidence or the statutory requirements.

The appellant purchased property to construct a fourplex and submitted applications for site plan approval and building permits.

The respondent municipality subsequently passed an interim control by-law freezing development in the area, having discussed the by-law in closed committee meetings.

The appellant moved to quash the by-law, arguing the closed meetings violated the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding the meetings fell under the 'potential litigation' exception.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the by-law, holding that the subject matter of the meetings was the by-law itself, not potential litigation, and that the statutory requirement for open meetings had been breached.

The respondents appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board after the City of London failed to address their applications for zoning amendments and site plan approval for two apartment buildings.

The Board allowed the appeal in part, approving one building instead of two.

The City appealed to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the Divisional Court erred in applying a patent unreasonableness standard of review rather than correctness or reasonableness, the result was correct.

The Court also rejected the City's argument that it was denied natural justice, finding that section 88 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act provided adequate notice that the Board could grant partial relief.