Christopher Joseph Henderson

The appellants built an addition to their home without a building permit.

After years of litigation, the City obtained an order under the Building Code Act authorizing an inspection of the addition.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the inspection would violate the section 7 Charter rights of the elderly parents living in the home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the inspection would endanger the parents' lives and noting that the City was fulfilling its statutory duty to ensure public safety.

The applicant contractor sought an interim injunction staying the City of Toronto Chief Purchasing Official's decision to temporarily suspend it from bidding on city contracts.

The suspension was based on performance issues that occurred before the new Supplier Code of Conduct took effect.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding the applicant established a strong prima facie case that the Chief Purchasing Official lacked authority to suspend for conduct predating the Code, and that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if unable to bid on imminent solicitations.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment finding it owed a duty of care to a class of tenants to provide statutory notices of rent reductions following property tax decreases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipality's specific interactions with the tenants through a pilot project created sufficient relational proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care.

The court further found no residual policy reasons to negate this duty, as the claim was limited to a specific group and did not conflict with the municipality's statutory obligations.

The municipality's failure to send the required notices breached the standard of care.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that significantly reduced the property tax assessments for a grocery store property.

The Board had found the current value of the property based on its development potential but then reduced the assessment to a fraction of that value by applying a general grocery store valuation model to achieve 'equity'.

MPAC argued the Board erred in its interpretation and application of the equity provisions in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation of the law raised sufficient doubt as to its legal correctness and involved an important question of law meriting the court's attention.

Following a successful application by the City of Toronto to inspect a residential property for Building Code compliance, the City sought costs.

The respondents argued the City was unsuccessful on most of its requested orders.

The court rejected this, finding the City obtained the necessary inspection orders and was the successful party.

The court awarded the City $20,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the respondents' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming an earlier order that corrected a typographical error in a property assessment.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order under section 134 of the Courts of Justice Act to provide a corrected base rate for the assessment and realty taxes.

The Divisional Court granted the requested order to give effect to the parties' agreement and avoid extending the period of miscalculation.

The City of Toronto requested a review and cancellation of a 2011 Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of a property owned by Panterra Mansions Joint Venture Corp. The City discovered a 2007 Superior Court Order appointing an interim receiver for the owner, which stayed all proceedings against the debtor or the property.

The Board found that the assessment appeal constituted a proceeding against the debtor or property, meaning the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter or issue the 2011 decision.

The request for review was granted and the previous decision was cancelled.

The municipality applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992 for orders requiring property owners to permit inspection of a residential addition constructed without a building permit and to provide engineering reports verifying compliance with the Building Code.

The owners argued the City lacked authority to inspect without a warrant and that the requested relief violated their Charter rights.

The court held that s. 38 empowered the court to order compliance with the Act and that inspections were a necessary part of the statutory scheme governing building permits.

The owners could not rely on the dwelling status of the property to resist inspection where the construction had been carried out illegally.

The application was granted and the City was authorized to inspect the property and uncover portions of the construction if necessary.

Block 9A Developments Ltd. brought a motion to dismiss the reinstatement of the City of Toronto's 2012 property assessment appeal, arguing detrimental reliance on the City's prior withdrawal.

The Assessment Review Board treated the motion as a request to review the Registrar's administrative decision to reinstate the appeal.

The Board found the motion was filed out of time without a good reason for an extension.

Furthermore, on the merits, the Board held that the moving party was not prejudiced by the reinstatement, as it had prior knowledge of the City's intent and had actually obtained a tax benefit.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant developer sought a provisional building permit for a townhouse development, which the City refused, demanding an off-site parkland dedication instead of cash in lieu of land.

The applicant appealed the refusal and applied for a declaration interpreting the municipal bylaw.

The court dismissed the appeal as premature because the applicant lacked final planning approval.

However, the court granted the application for a declaration, finding that under the plain language of the bylaw, the City cannot require an off-site parkland dedication without the developer's agreement.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which had issued amended orders correcting a typographical error in a 2002 assessment decision six years later, resulting in a back tax bill of over $500,000.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the amended decisions and that correctness outweighed any prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction and by failing to balance the objective of correctness with the delay and prejudice suffered by the taxpayer.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for reconsideration.

Self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim in litigation concerning alleged improper property tax arrears, tax increases, and related municipal conduct.

The defendant municipality opposed several amendments, arguing that some referred to settlement discussions, were legally untenable, or improperly pleaded evidence or argument.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the presumptive right to amend pleadings unless non-compensable prejudice would result.

While certain amendments were refused—particularly those referring to settlement privilege, improperly pleaded Charter claims, irrelevant commentary, and legally untenable allegations—the majority of amendments were permitted with modifications, recognizing the latitude afforded to self-represented litigants.

The defendant’s cross-motion seeking case management was adjourned without a date.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding property tax arrears.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a cross-motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was brought in the wrong court.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that under the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a final order of a Superior Court judge seeking such relief lies to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant taxpayer sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

In 2002, the Board made a typographical error in an order, dropping a zero from the property's assessed value.

Six years later, the Board unilaterally corrected the error under its minor error rule, resulting in a retroactive tax bill of over $500,000 for the taxpayer.

The taxpayer applied for a review, arguing prejudice and delay, but the Board refused relief.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's conclusions on its jurisdiction to review the correction and its failure to properly weigh prejudice and delay.

The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law repealing a heritage designation affecting its hotel property and sought related relief concerning heritage property tax rebates.

The municipality had approved demolition of the original designated heritage building in 1996 but did not repeal the designation by-law until 2012, when it enacted a repealing by-law retroactive to the demolition approval date pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant alleged illegality and bad faith, arguing that the municipality failed to provide prior notice and enacted the repeal retroactively to defeat its tax rebate claims.

The court held that prior notice was not required where the Act mandated repeal following approval of demolition, and that the retroactive repeal was a reasonable step to comply belatedly with statutory requirements.

The applicant failed to establish bad faith or illegality, and further failed to meet additional eligibility criteria for the heritage tax rebate program.

The City of Toronto appealed a Divisional Court order certifying a class proceeding brought by a rooming house tenant.

The plaintiff alleged the City negligently failed to deliver statutorily-mandated rent reduction notices to tenants targeted by the Parkdale Pilot Project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no private law duty of care to this specific subgroup of tenants, and that policy considerations would not inevitably negate such a duty.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto.

The proposed class action alleged the City was negligent in failing to send statutory notices of rent reduction to tenants of rooming houses after municipal property taxes were reduced.

The motions judge had found it plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care to the tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statutory scheme and the specific relationship created by the Parkdale Pilot Project, it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care.

The proceeding was certified as a class action.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling the City of Toronto to issue notices of rent reduction to tenants of 29 residential complexes, following a reduction in municipal property taxes.

The City admitted it failed to provide the notices within the prescribed time under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for mandamus, finding that issuing the notices years late could mislead tenants, as the one-year limitation period to claim a rent reduction had already expired.

The court also declined to grant a declaration of the City's statutory breach, as it would have no practical effect, but allowed a motion to add a tenant as a party.

The appellant church appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board denying a property tax exemption for a warehouse property adjacent to the church.

The church argued the property was exempt under s. 3(1)3(i) of the Assessment Act as 'land used in connection with' a place of worship, as it was used for storage and youth programs.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by asking whether the property was a 'place of worship' rather than whether it was 'land used in connection with' a place of worship.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member for rehearing.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board which quashed its complaints regarding the property assessments of two properties.

The Board had found the City failed to comply with the notice provisions in s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act because it mailed the notices to the previous owner's address on the assessment roll despite knowing the properties had been sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the City acted reasonably and in good faith by using the address on the roll, which had not been revoked.

The Court found the Board erred in imposing a higher standard of inquiry on the municipality, set aside the decision, and remitted the complaints for a hearing on the merits.