Caterina Facciolo

The applicants and the City of Vaughan brought motions for costs against the appellants, Humberplex Developments Inc. and Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc., following the dismissal of their appeals regarding Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48.

The costs motions primarily related to a motion to strike brought by the appellants, which sought to exclude expert planning evidence based on hearsay and innuendo regarding alleged bias and improper influence.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct in bringing the motion to strike was unreasonable and warranted an award of costs.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in costs to the applicants and $20,000 to the City, payable primarily by Humberplex.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The Town of Richmond Hill appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved the Town's official plan policies regarding parkland dedication but imposed a 25% cap on the alternative requirement under s. 42 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of the Planning Act was unreasonable.

The Court held that the legislation expressly grants municipalities the authority to set the alternative parkland dedication rate by by-law, and the OMB does not have the jurisdiction to impose a cap or fix a specific rate through its power to approve official plan policies.

The moving party sought leave to admit an affidavit on its pending motion for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the points raised in the affidavit regarding the public importance of the issues could be made by counsel without the affidavit, that other municipalities had already been granted leave to intervene, and that the remaining aspects of the affidavit contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision imposing a cap on the alternative requirement for parkland dedication under s. 42(3) of the Planning Act.

Several other municipalities sought leave to intervene in the motion for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, arguing the Board's decision could impact their own parkland dedication policies.

The Divisional Court granted the motions to intervene, finding the issue transcended the immediate parties and the proposed interveners could offer distinct and useful perspectives on an issue of public importance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal, which was dismissed on the basis of prematurity.

The successful respondents sought costs.

The moving party argued each party should bear its own costs due to the public interest and novelty of the issue.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the usual rule of costs following the event applied, especially since the motion was dismissed for prematurity.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive to the clients represented by Mr. Streisfield.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal a preliminary decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the interpretation of parkland dedication provisions under the Planning Act.

The Town argued that the Board could not set an alternative park dedication rate in an Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding it premature.

The Court held that the issue was not a discrete threshold question and that granting leave would improperly fragment the ongoing Board proceedings.