B. Ogunmefun

Following a successful application challenging the issuance of a building permit for a riding arena, the applicants sought costs exceeding $60,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondents disputed the amount and argued that the issues were straightforward and that the applicants’ settlement offer was invalid under Rule 49.

The court applied the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The court reduced the applicants’ claimed fees due to duplication of counsel and high billing rates and rejected reliance on the settlement offer.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and ordered payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The applicants appealed a decision by the Township's Chief Building Official to issue a building permit for the construction of a riding arena on a neighbouring property.

The subject property was located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Linkage Zone, which permitted agricultural uses but not riding arenas.

The court found that the riding arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that its construction constituted major development requiring a watershed plan under the Official Plan.

The court concluded that the building permit was issued in error, rescinded the Chief Building Official's decision, and revoked the permit.

Following an application concerning enforcement of a municipal emergency order affecting the health and safety of an occupant of a residential building, the successful municipality sought costs.

The respondent had previously made a settlement offer that was rejected.

The court considered the factors governing costs, including success, reasonable value of the work performed, the settlement offer, and the expectations of the losing party.

Finding the respondent’s offer less favourable than the judgment obtained and noting that the applicant acted reasonably in withdrawing part of its claim, the court declined to depart from the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

A municipality sought confirmation of an emergency order issued under s. 15.7(1) of the Building Code Act after a municipal law enforcement officer discovered an apartment in extreme unsanitary condition posing a potential health risk to occupants and others in the building.

The municipality arranged for emergency cleaning and sought to recover remediation costs, administrative fees, and legal expenses from the property owner by adding the amount to the tax roll.

The owner argued the tenant should be responsible, the emergency designation was unreasonable, and the cleanup costs were excessive.

The court confirmed the emergency order and held the owner responsible for remediation costs relating to the property condition.

However, the court modified the recoverable amount by removing expenses related to cleaning the tenant’s personal belongings and reserved decision on administrative fees and legal costs.

The Township of Oro-Medonte brought an application for a declaration that a strip of waterfront land known as Lake Shore Promenade, shown on a 1914 plan of subdivision, was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondent abutting lot owners argued that the land was not a public highway and claimed possessory title through adverse possession, having maintained the land and built shore-related structures on it for decades.

The court held that while the original owner intended to dedicate the land as a public highway, the Township's acceptance of it as such was void because the land did not meet the statutory width requirements for a highway in 1914.

Instead, the land was held by the Township in trust for the public as an access way and lakeside park.

The court further held that municipally owned land held for public benefit is immune from adverse possession claims, and in any event, the respondents failed to establish exclusive and adverse possession.

However, the court found a prima facie case that the doctrine of laches could apply to prevent the Township from removing existing shore-related structures due to its long-standing acquiescence, and directed a trial on that issue.