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.
