Andrew Weretelnyk

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were reasonably open to him on the evidence and that the appellant failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that costs should follow the result of the trial.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruling.

The OMB had found that the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (OPA 2), which restricted the demolition and conversion of rental housing, was illegal and conflicted with the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal held that while the OMB had limited jurisdiction to determine whether OPA 2 was an official plan within the meaning of the Planning Act, it erred in concluding that the City lacked the authority to enact it.

The Court found that the Planning Act permitted municipalities to include policies ensuring an adequate supply of rental housing.

Furthermore, OPA 2 did not conflict with the Tenant Protection Act, as dual compliance was possible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sought a stay of a declaration that their restaurant and lounge violated the City's zoning by-law, pending their appeal of that decision.

The effect of the stay would be to adjourn an expedited trial on remedy issues (whether to permanently enjoin the operation).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the appellants failed to establish a serious issue to be adjudicated or irreparable harm, as their business operations had not changed and any harm would be purely economic.

The balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the expedited trial so all issues could be heard in a single appeal.