24 total
Leave to appeal LPAT decision on development charges denied; balance of probabilities standard correctly applied.
The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that ordered the application of a discounted industrial rate for development charges on a new building constructed by the respondent developer.
The municipality argued the LPAT erred by applying a balance of probabilities standard rather than requiring certainty of future industrial use, and sought to introduce fresh evidence of non-industrial tenants.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's application of the civil standard of proof to predict future use, rejecting the fresh evidence as irrelevant to the time of building permit issuance, and concluding the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance.
Procedural directions issued for virtual hearing and electronic filing in a motion for leave to appeal.
A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
The court scheduled the motion to be heard by video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.
Zoning by-law declared ultra vires and void for vagueness in attempting to prohibit short-term rentals.
The applicant municipality sought an order under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the respondent from using her property as a short-term rental, arguing it constituted an illegal 'Tourist Establishment' under the zoning by-law.
The respondent brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that her use was permitted or that the by-law was unacceptably vague and ultra vires.
The court found that the by-law did not clearly regulate short-term use in the Resort Residential zone and that, by attempting to regulate the identity of the users rather than the use of the land, it was ultra vires the Planning Act.
The municipality's application was dismissed and the by-law was declared of no force and effect to the extent it purported to regulate short-term rentals.
IPC disclosure order set aside and remitted to provide affected homeowners notice and hearing opportunity.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of records containing homeowners' addresses and environmental test results.
The Divisional Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.
The court found that the information arguably constituted 'personal information' and that procedural fairness, as well as potentially section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required that the affected homeowners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their information could be disclosed.
