David N. Germain

The Town of Caledon sought a declaration that the respondents failed to comply with a consent order requiring removal of structures, trucks, trailers, and equipment from their property.

The respondents argued substantial compliance and requested more time.

The court interpreted the order as requiring removal of all such items, not just those associated with a transportation depot, and found the respondents in breach.

The respondents were given 60 days to comply, after which the Town may remove the items at the respondents’ expense.

Vidhya Ramdas appealed two permanent injunction orders issued against her for undertaking unauthorized work on her property within a regulated wetland.

She argued the application judge erred by denying an adjournment and by not requiring the matter to proceed to trial due to contested facts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the adjournment refusal given the overwhelming evidence that Ramdas proceeded with excavations without the requisite permits.

The court also provided observations on the duties of judges and counsel when dealing with self-represented litigants, noting that opposing counsel were remiss in not fully informing the application judge about the interim injunction and served materials.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The Township of Amaranth sought declarations and a permanent injunction against Vidhya Ramdas for contravening its Site Alteration By-law and a Stop Work Order by performing unauthorized fill activities on her property.

Ramdas failed to file responding materials despite multiple adjournments and court orders.

The court found deliberate and continuing breaches of the by-law and the orders, granting the Township's application for declarations, a permanent injunction, remedial orders for property restoration, and costs.

The Town of Grand Valley sought declarations that Paul Kenneth Walker's trucking business contravened its zoning by-laws and a statutory injunction to prohibit its operation.

Walker and Jones argued the business conformed with the former by-law and raised defenses of laches and promissory estoppel.

The court found triable issues regarding conformity with the former by-law and the applicability of equitable doctrines, dismissing the Town's application for an injunction and directing a trial on these issues.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing the appeal of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NCVA) against a Divisional Court decision.

The NCVA sought costs of $77,419.86 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and Divisional Court proceedings.

The court awarded reduced costs, finding the amounts sought for the leave to appeal motion and appeal hearing to be excessive relative to the Divisional Court costs.

The Gilmors were ordered to pay the NCVA $44,674.25 all-inclusive in total costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner denying them permission to build a home on their land due to flood control concerns raised by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming a general legislative prohibition on development in floodplains and by elevating safety to a stand-alone head of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the proposed development would have no impact on flood control and directed the approval of the development without conditions.

The Town brought an application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to enjoin the appellant from contravening its zoning and site alteration by-laws, alleging the appellant operated an illegal waste disposal business.

The appellant claimed the properties were used for a legal non-conforming peat moss and triple mix business.

The application judge granted the injunction based on affidavit evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by resolving conflicting material facts and credibility issues solely on a written record and by failing to make factual findings to support the site alteration injunction.

The appeal was allowed and a trial of the issues was directed.

The applicant Ministry sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the expansion of the urban boundary of the Town of Fort Erie.

The Board had found that a transitional regulation under the Places to Grow Act 2005 applied because a valid 'request' was made prior to June 16, 2006, even though supporting documentation was submitted later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of 'request' or its factual findings.