Eli S. Lederman

The appellant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's process in establishing a development planning area under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994.

The Minister had instructed consultants that the preservation of an agricultural reserve, which included the appellant's lands, was a 'given'.

The appellant argued this breached the statutory requirements for an investigation and public participation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister has broad policy discretion to set parameters for the investigation and survey, and that public consultation outside those defined contours was not required.

The third party real estate agent appealed a trial judgment awarding the purchasers damages and costs arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The purchasers had settled the main action with the vendor and proceeded against the agent for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and mitigation, noting the purchasers were not obliged to close the transaction given the uncertainty of repair costs and their specific need for a move-in ready home.

However, the Court varied the costs award, recharacterizing the costs of defending the main action as damages and reducing the trial costs of the third party action.

The applicant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's ongoing planning process under the Ontario Planning Development Act, 1994, alleging improper limitations on the investigation stage and lack of meaningful public participation.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that judicial review should generally await the conclusion of administrative proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the planning process was complete.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an application brought by the applicant landowner on short notice.

The parties agreed to the adjournment, but the applicant sought terms to prevent the inclusion of its lands in the Greenbelt area pending the hearing.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the planning process to proceed.

The court also noted that section 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act prevents the granting of an injunction against the Crown.

The motion for adjournment was granted without terms.

The appellant vendor agreed to sell commercial land to the respondent purchaser, conditional on obtaining severance approval under the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment granted severance but required the vendor to construct and dedicate a road extension.

The vendor attempted to terminate the agreement, arguing the condition was unreasonable and frustrated the contract.

The purchaser sued for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision granting specific performance, finding that the contract clearly obligated the vendor to obtain necessary consents at its expense, the doctrine of frustration did not apply as the condition was foreseeable, and the property was unique.