David W. DeMille

The plaintiff, a land developer, sued the City of Belleville for breach of a 1999 Development Agreement and unjust enrichment.

The agreement stipulated that owners of "benefiting properties" would share the cost of sewer and water infrastructure constructed by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose when the City installed its own sewer and water lines on Cloverleaf Drive, connecting to the plaintiff's infrastructure, but did not require homeowners connecting to these services to enter into cost-sharing agreements with the plaintiff.

The court interpreted clause 22 of the Development Agreement, considering the factual matrix and the Public Utilities Act, concluding that the clause applied only to land developers of undeveloped adjoining properties, not individual homeowners.

The action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remediation and monitoring of groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following Nortel's insolvency proceedings, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellants agreed to withdraw their appeals and the Director agreed to revoke the Order.

The Tribunal found that the proposed withdrawals and revocation were consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as a new Director's Order would be issued to the current property owner, backed by financial assurance, to ensure ongoing risk management measures are implemented.

The appeals were dismissed and the Order was revoked.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law and legal non-conforming use, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant, a public interest litigant, had partial success but the main issue was decided in favour of the respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $40,000 to the respondent Picton Terminals.

The court declined to award costs to the respondent County, finding that its failure to recognize the trans-shipment use in its 2006 zoning by-law generated the uncertainty that led to the application, and recognizing the applicant as a public interest litigant.

The applicant, representing local ratepayers, brought an application to interpret a municipal zoning by-law, arguing that a deep water port facility's trans-shipment operations contravened the by-law.

The respondents argued the operations were protected as a legal non-conforming use.

The court interpreted the historical zoning by-laws and applied the framework for pre-existing uses, finding that the general historic use of the property for trans-shipment of bulk commodities had not fundamentally changed.

The court held that the current operations constituted a reasonable expansion of earlier activities and remained protected as a legal non-conforming use.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

The parties requested on consent that the proceeding be adjourned and the existing stay of the order be extended to allow time to finalize remedial actions.

The Tribunal found no concerns under section 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the requested extension and adjournment.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order concerning groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following negotiations, Nortel and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change reached a framework agreement regarding remediation.

The parties consented to an order extending the stay of certain items in the Director's Order until June 30, 2015, and requiring Nortel to submit revised restorative action plans.

The Tribunal accepted the consent order, finding no bars to the stay under the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant property assessment corporation appealed a decision declaring a student residence located on a college campus exempt from property taxation.

The college had entered into a 99-year land lease with a private developer to construct and operate the residence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in concluding the college was the tenant of the land.

The Court held that the private developer was the tenant and paramount occupier of the land, making it liable for property taxes under the Assessment Act, and that the college lost its specific tax exemption when it ceased to solely occupy the land.

The applicant poultry farm applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, alleging that a municipal by-law requiring intensive livestock operations to own at least 40% of the land used for their nutrient management plan restricted a normal farm practice.

The Board heard evidence from various experts and industry representatives regarding manure management practices.

The Board concluded that the use of contract land and nutrient management plans are normal farm practices.

The Board held that the 40% ownership requirement unduly restricted normal farm practice, and that long-term control of the land base, such as through multi-year leases or agreements, was the appropriate standard.