The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Board to reaffirm a cost apportionment formula for shared social services that had been used since 2004.
The applicant argued that the governing regulation required a 'double majority vote' in every year the alternate formula was continued.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the legislation did not require an annual double majority vote once the alternate formula was initially approved, and that the Board's decision was neither ultra vires nor unreasonable.
