Alstair Huw Alstyne Burton

The appellants (Bolenders) appealed a trial judgment that largely prohibited their peat moss extraction, triple mix compilation, and waste receipt activities on their rural-zoned properties, and found breaches of a site alteration by-law.

The trial judge had found these activities were not legal non-conforming uses, except for the open storage of heavy equipment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding most of the trial judge's orders, including the injunction requiring future compliance with the site alteration by-law.

However, the court set aside one paragraph of the trial order (para. 4) on consent, which had declared a breach of the 2017 by-law, due to lack of evidence of a breach in that specific year.

The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the activities were not legal non-conforming uses and that the injunction was not retroactive.

The Respondent municipality sought costs of $142,102.11 against the Applicants following a hearing under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the Applicants acted unreasonably and frivolously by failing to prepare adequately or present expert evidence.

The Applicants, who were self-represented at the hearing, opposed the motion and sought their own costs of $7,500 for responding to it.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed both costs claims, finding that the self-represented Applicants had prepared as best they could and their conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable or frivolous.

The Board also found no bad faith on the part of the municipality in seeking costs.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the Town of Georgina to approve a fill application and issue a permit.

The court reviewed the requirements for mandamus and the parties' positions on the standard of review and municipal discretion.

Ultimately, the court raised a jurisdictional issue, noting that under section 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, applications for relief in the nature of mandamus must generally be brought in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the parties 60 days to make submissions on jurisdiction, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The appellants appealed a permanent injunction restraining them from contravening the Town of Georgina's Site Alteration By-law by importing fill onto their property.

The appellants argued that the Aggregate Resources Act permitted them to import fill to rehabilitate a former aggregate pit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific conditions of the appellants' licence and site plans required rehabilitation using only onsite materials.

The Court also found no conflict between the injunction and the Act, as the By-law explicitly exempted authorized rehabilitation activities.

The applicants were wholly successful in their application for mandatory orders requiring the demolition of structures built without building permits, and in dismissing the respondents' counter-application.

The court determined costs by written submissions.

The respondents argued the costs sought were excessive and that the applicants had over-lawyered the matter.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the time spent and rates charged by the applicants' senior counsel to be fair, reasonable, and proportional.

The court awarded the applicants their requested partial indemnity costs of $25,643.68, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Municipality of Dysart and its Chief Building Official brought an application for a mandatory order requiring the respondents to demolish several structures built without building permits, and an injunction restraining the use of a logging museum for concerts without a change of use permit.

The respondents brought a counter-application seeking an order directing the issuance of a building permit for the museum addition and a declaration that permits were not required for other structures.

The court dismissed the respondents' counter-application, finding they failed to appeal the Chief Building Official's decision within the statutory timeframe and that the official correctly interpreted the Building Code regarding change of use.

The court granted the municipality's application, ordering the demolition of the unpermitted structures and issuing an injunction against holding concerts at the museum.

The court considered whether an interim injunctive order granted during an adjournment of an application remained in effect after the application did not proceed on the scheduled return date.

The applicant had obtained an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations on affidavit evidence but failed to conduct the cross-examination and failed to file the necessary confirmation for the rescheduled hearing.

The court held that the interim injunction was granted on strict terms tied to the adjournment and anticipated cross-examination.

Because those conditions were not fulfilled and the application did not proceed, the basis for the interim relief no longer existed.

The court confirmed that the interim injunction expired on the scheduled return date but allowed the applicant to seek further interim relief in a future appearance.

The Town brought an application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to enjoin the appellant from contravening its zoning and site alteration by-laws, alleging the appellant operated an illegal waste disposal business.

The appellant claimed the properties were used for a legal non-conforming peat moss and triple mix business.

The application judge granted the injunction based on affidavit evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by resolving conflicting material facts and credibility issues solely on a written record and by failing to make factual findings to support the site alteration injunction.

The appeal was allowed and a trial of the issues was directed.

Following a costs endorsement, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing pre-judgment interest and security for costs.

The court found no special circumstances to depart from the statutory pre-judgment interest rate of 4.5 percent.

Additionally, the court ordered the return of the $10,725 security for costs, plus any interest, to the plaintiffs.

Homeowners sued a property management company for breach of contract and negligence after tenants placed by the manager operated a methamphetamine lab that caused an explosion and rendered the property uninhabitable.

The court found the manager misrepresented that the management contract was identical to a sample contract, which altered a liability clause from negligence to gross negligence.

Applying principles from cases including Tilden Rent-A-Car v. Clendenning and Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., the court held the defendant was estopped from relying on the altered limitation clause.

The manager breached its contractual obligations and the standard of care by failing to conduct promised tenant screening, failing to disclose deficiencies in the screening process, and failing to pursue eviction when arrears and warning signs emerged.

These failures caused the plaintiffs’ loss.

A municipality brought an application seeking to restrain landowners and a contractor from removing fill and other materials from agricultural-zoned land and to compel restoration of the grading.

The municipality argued the activity constituted an impermissible extractive use and raised safety concerns related to truck access onto a nearby roadway.

The respondents asserted the work was intended to level the property following the removal of a former railway trestle embankment and disputed the existence of safety risks.

The court found several key factual issues—including zoning implications, the legality of the access, and alleged road safety hazards—could not be resolved on the application record and would require a trial.

As an interim measure, the court restrained excavation activity until a specified date and directed the respondents to apply for a municipal access permit while encouraging negotiations to resolve the dispute.

The appellant appealed an OMB decision regarding an application by the respondent.

After leave to appeal was partially granted, the lake in question was reclassified as under threshold, rendering the appeal moot.

The respondent subsequently withdrew her application before the OMB.

The parties sought costs for the leave motion, perfection of the appeal, and the appearance.

The Divisional Court ordered no costs, finding that the appeal became moot through external circumstances and no fault of the respondents.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of an Ontario Municipal Board Review Panel that ordered a rehearing of a property severance application.

The original Board had denied the severance due to concerns about water quality and phosphorous levels in Lake Waseosa.

The Review Panel ordered a rehearing, finding the original Board applied the wrong standard and failed to properly apply the precautionary principle.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on three questions of law: whether the OMB's Rules apply to a s. 43 Review Panel decision, whether the Review Panel erred in finding the original Board applied the wrong test, and whether the Review Panel erred regarding the precautionary principle.