2 total
Successful applicants awarded reduced partial indemnity costs after building permit decision overturned.
Following a successful application challenging the issuance of a building permit for a riding arena, the applicants sought costs exceeding $60,000 on a full indemnity basis.
The respondents disputed the amount and argued that the issues were straightforward and that the applicants’ settlement offer was invalid under Rule 49.
The court applied the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.
The court reduced the applicants’ claimed fees due to duplication of counsel and high billing rates and rejected reliance on the settlement offer.
Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and ordered payable jointly and severally by the respondents.
Building permit for riding arena revoked as it was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law.
The applicants appealed a decision by the Township's Chief Building Official to issue a building permit for the construction of a riding arena on a neighbouring property.
The subject property was located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Linkage Zone, which permitted agricultural uses but not riding arenas.
The court found that the riding arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that its construction constituted major development requiring a watershed plan under the Official Plan.
The court concluded that the building permit was issued in error, rescinded the Chief Building Official's decision, and revoked the permit.
