Property Tax Assessment

The Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami sought a permanent injunction and other orders to enforce its zoning bylaws against Temagami Barge Limited (TBL) and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel, alleging unlawful commercial uses on Crown land zoned for "Special Management Area (SMA) Zone (Crown Land)".

TBL argued its uses were lawful non-conforming or permissible expansions under the Planning Act.

The court found most of TBL's commercial uses (marina, retail fuel, commercial docking, barge rental, retail aggregate sales, sewage waste disposal) unlawful, not qualifying as lawful non-conforming uses or reasonable expansions of prior industrial uses.

The court granted a permanent injunction against these unlawful uses but denied the request for partial closure of the property and removal of sea-can containers and an office trailer, finding insufficient evidence of public nuisance or contravention for the latter.

The plaintiff, a condominium resident, sought statutory and tort-based injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendant, an underground venue operating in his building.

The plaintiff alleged the venue was operating as an unlicensed nightclub, causing severe noise and vibrations constituting a nuisance.

The court found that the defendant was indeed operating as an "entertainment establishment/nightclub" without the proper license, based on its functional activities (e.g., providing dance facilities, minimal seating, ancillary food sales) despite being licensed as an "eating or drinking establishment." The court granted a declaration to this effect and issued both a statutory injunction requiring the defendant to cease operations in contravention of its licensing status, and an interim/interlocutory injunction based in tort, prohibiting the emission of sound audible beyond the lot limit between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.

The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.

The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.

The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.

Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge issued an emergency order for the immediate demolition of the designated heritage Preston Springs Hotel due to its unsafe structural condition and persistent trespassing.

The CBO applied to the court to confirm the reasonableness of this order and to recover demolition costs from the owner, Haastown Holdings (Preston) Inc., who consented to both orders.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) intervened, challenging the reasonableness of the demolition order, arguing that the CBO failed to consider relevant factors (heritage status, appeal to CRB, alternative remediation options) and considered irrelevant factors (cost of remediation).

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the CBO's decision was well-informed by expert reports and his own inspections, and that the building posed an immediate danger that necessitated demolition.

The court confirmed the emergency order and the recoverability of demolition costs from the owner, dismissing the ACO's challenge and alternate relief requests as moot or unsupported.

The Corporation of the Town of Renfrew sought costs after successfully obtaining declarations of ownership, injunctive relief against trespassing, and an order for the removal of encroachments and a non-compliant scaffolding.

The respondents, who were self-represented, opposed the costs request and sought their own costs.

The court awarded the applicant $8,500 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that the respondents' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant was charged with a strict liability regulatory offence under the City of Toronto's noise by-law for excessive noise emanating from her unit.

The complainant, a neighbour, provided extensive logs, police reports, and emails detailing consistent loud music, banging, screaming, and running at late hours, disturbing her and her daughter's peace and sleep.

The defendant denied the noise, claiming it was impossible due to her work schedule, and argued she could not be responsible for the actions of adult nieces staying with her.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated, establishing that excessive noise originated from the defendant's unit.

The court also found the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in preventing the noise, despite being aware of the complaints and a co-op board order to remove her guests.

The defence's application for abuse of process, arguing forum shopping due to a parallel small claims court action, was dismissed as the regulatory charge was distinct from the civil claim.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Township of Clearview appealed a motion decision that largely dismissed its anti-SLAPP application against an action for defamation, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by the respondents.

The action stemmed from the Township posting resident letters on its website that contained negative comments about the respondents' farming practices and proposed micro-brewery.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the defamation claim, finding that the motion judge erred in his analysis of the qualified privilege and indemnity defences, which had a real prospect of success.

The negligence claim dismissal was not appealed.

The breach of fiduciary duty claim dismissal was upheld.

The applicants sought a declaration that their property's current use (outside storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, commercial/business operation, storage of trucks/trailers, shipping containers) constituted a legal non-conforming use under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act, which would set aside municipal Orders to Comply.

The respondent sought dismissal, or a declaration limiting the non-conforming use to 4 trucks and 7 trailers.

The court found that while the property had a prior legal non-conforming use as a trucking business with ancillary parking and storage, the applicants' current use had significantly changed in nature and intensity, including storage of derelict vehicles, a fuelling station, and a junk yard, which were too remote from the original use and caused undue neighbourhood impact.

Consequently, the applicants lost the protection of s. 34(9) of the Planning Act, and their application was dismissed, making the Orders to Comply enforceable.

The applicants sought an order compelling the respondents to reduce the height of a fence to comply with a municipal by-law, after the municipality declined to enforce it.

The court considered whether it could intervene in a municipality's discretionary decision not to enforce a by-law.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the court found that it could only intervene if the municipality acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

As no such evidence was adduced, and the municipality provided articulable reasons for its decision, the application was dismissed.

The applicant, Clublink, owned the Glen Abbey Golf Course in Oakville and sought to redevelop it into a residential and mixed-use community.

The Town designated Glen Abbey as a cultural heritage property and passed five related by-laws, including a Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan By-law, authorizing the preparation of a conservation plan that required Clublink to seek Town approval for alterations to the golf course.

The application judge quashed all five by-laws and the conservation plan, finding them ultra vires, passed in bad faith, and void for vagueness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, upholding the validity of the five by-laws but quashing the conservation plan resolution on the basis that it effectively compelled Clublink to continue operating the golf course as a service, contrary to section 11(8)5 of the Municipal Act.

The Town of Oakville sought to designate Glen Abbey golf course as a cultural heritage property.

Clublink, the owner, applied under section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish and remove the golf course.

The Town argued the application should proceed under section 33, which provides different procedural protections and appeal routes.

The central issue was whether a golf course constitutes a "structure" within the meaning of section 34.

The Court of Appeal held that Glen Abbey, being a product of significant construction and engineering comprising constituent parts intended to remain permanently on the property, was a structure within section 34.

The purposive and contextual interpretation of the statute, considering its legislative history and the evolution of municipal heritage planning beyond a "building-centric" paradigm, supported this conclusion.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality, which included claims of malicious prosecution, misfeasance/abuse of public office, and damages related to the municipality's Fill By-Law.

The municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial for any of the plaintiffs' claims.

Specifically, the court found that the municipality had reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue Provincial Offences Act proceedings, did not act with malice, and did not act in bad faith in enacting or enforcing the Fill By-Law, including its fee provisions (which were previously found ultra vires but did not give rise to damages due to the plaintiffs' failure to complete permit applications).

The appellants owned vacant land in the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen and placed a recreational motor home on their property.

The Township sought a declaration that this was a non-permitted use under its Comprehensive Zoning By-Law and an injunction prohibiting the placement of any vehicle for human habitation.

The application judge granted the Township's application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in interpreting the by-law to include recreational motor homes, which were not expressly prohibited.

The court also found that providing electrical power to the motor home was insufficient evidence of intended habitation without actual habitation, and that the injunction was overly broad as it prohibited all vehicles, including cars.

The applicants, participants in a syndicated mortgage, sought payment out of court of surplus funds from a municipal tax sale after the mortgage went into default.

They had previously settled litigation against their investment advisor for a substantial sum.

The respondents, also mortgage participants, contended that the applicants must account for these settlement funds, which would alter the distribution of the surplus.

The court found no obligation for the applicants to account for the settlement funds, as these were damages from third-party litigation, not proceeds from the mortgage or land.

The court granted the applications for payment out of court based on the First Priority lenders' interests, dismissing the respondents' accounting claim.

A motor vehicle collision occurred at an intersection in Hamilton when a vehicle operated by Ms. Safranyos failed to yield the right-of-way and was struck by a vehicle operated by Mr. McHugh, who had consumed alcohol and was speeding.

The trial judge found all three defendants liable: Ms. Safranyos at 50%, Mr. McHugh at 25%, and the City of Hamilton at 25%.

The City appealed on grounds that the trial judge misapplied the non-repair standard and improperly used adverse inferences.

Mr. McHugh appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in finding he could have avoided the collision and misused evidence regarding his intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the City's appeal but allowed Mr. McHugh's appeal, finding the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors in her factual findings and legal analysis regarding Mr. McHugh's liability.

The Ombudsman of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that held neither the Election Compliance Audit Committee nor the Property Standards Committee of the City of Hamilton constituted "local boards" within the meaning of section 14.1 of the Ombudsman Act.

The Ombudsman sought to investigate whether these committees complied with the public meeting requirement under section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle to conclude that the general language in the definition of "local board" does not extend to investigative/adjudicative bodies that do not carry on the day-to-day operations of the municipality.

Consequently, the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate these committees' compliance with open meeting requirements.

The Town of New Tecumseth sought an injunction to shut down Norman Dallard's ice cream shop, "What's the Scoop," alleging multiple zoning by-law infractions related to external evidence of a home-based business and employee residency.

Dallard contended that the Town was unfairly targeting him and acting unreasonably.

The court found that the Town had established several by-law breaches, particularly concerning unapproved signage, patron-accessible patio furniture, and the business not being entirely contained within the dwelling, as well as exceeding the permitted number of non-resident employees.

However, the court rejected the Town's claim that the business had become the predominant use of the property and dismissed allegations of bad faith or unreasonable targeting by the Town.

Instead of a full injunction to shut down the business, the court ordered specific compliance measures and awarded the Town $7,500 in costs, adjourning the application sine die for future compliance issues.

The applicants, owners of hookah lounges in Toronto, challenged a City of Toronto by-law prohibiting hookah smoking in licensed establishments.

They argued the City lacked the power to pass the by-law, that it was confiscatory, conflicted with provincial legislation (Occupational Health and Safety Act), and was passed in bad faith.

The court dismissed the application, finding the by-law was validly enacted under the City of Toronto Act's broad health and safety powers, was not confiscatory, did not create an operational conflict with the OHSA, and that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of City Council.

The court emphasized the broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and deference to democratic decisions of municipal councils.