3 total
OEB has jurisdiction to impose standard pipeline relocation cost-sharing terms despite the Drainage Act.
The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision approving the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.
The municipality objected to a standard cost-sharing provision for pipeline relocation, arguing it conflicted with section 26 of the Drainage Act, which would otherwise require the utility to pay 100% of relocation costs caused by drainage works.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB had broad, exclusive statutory authority under the Municipal Franchises Act to prescribe the terms of the franchise renewal in the public interest, and did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction by imposing the standard cost-sharing terms.
Appeal allowed; OEB erred in finding a 1957 natural gas franchise agreement expired under the rule against perpetuities.
The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision that approved the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.
The OEB had found that the original 1957 franchise agreement expired by operation of the common law rule against perpetuities and ordered a renewal based on the OEB's Model Franchise Agreement.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the OEB had jurisdiction to decide the issue, it erred in law by finding the agreement expired.
The Court determined that the utility's rights under the 1957 agreement were vested, not future contingent interests, and therefore the rule against perpetuities did not apply.
Motion to strike claim for contribution and indemnity regarding urban blight nuisance actions dismissed.
The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bridge company's statement of claim, which sought contribution and indemnity for damages and legal costs arising from five nuisance actions brought by local residents.
The residents alleged that the plaintiff's boarded-up houses caused urban blight.
The plaintiff claimed the municipality unlawfully withheld demolition permits, causing the nuisance.
The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the action was not an abuse of process nor barred by issue estoppel.
The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its pleadings to better particularize misfeasance in public office and negligence.
