C. Barnett

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning and Appeal Tribunal that approved an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment permitting the expansion of a casino.

The moving parties argued the Tribunal erred in law by allowing a 'rolling hold' under s. 36 of the Planning Act and by denying procedural fairness when it imposed time limits on evidence after the hearing had commenced.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Tribunal's interpretation of s. 36 and found the procedural fairness issue merited attention.

Leave to appeal was granted on both issues.

The applicants sought a declaration that a proposed municipal fee for a fill permit was an illegal tax, and a mandamus order compelling the respondent municipality to issue the permit.

The municipality had refused to issue the permit until a fill agreement and fill management plan were finalized, which included resolving several outstanding technical and environmental issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicants did not yet have a clear legal right to the permit and the municipality was not under an obligation to issue it while significant issues remained unresolved.