Eric Davis

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the respondent Commission's Cost of Production Formula for chicken pricing.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to adequately explain its preference for certain expert evidence over others, rendering its reasons conclusory and inadequate.

The application was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The plaintiff developer brought an action against the City of Guelph seeking reimbursement for local service charges paid for road improvements as a condition of subdivision approval.

The City moved to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was an abuse of process because the developer failed to appeal the conditions to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal under the Planning Act.

The Superior Court granted the motion, finding that the developer was improperly attempting to circumvent the statutory appeal scheme and collaterally attack municipal by-laws, making it plain and obvious the claim could not succeed.

The applicants, members of the Carpenters Union, brought an application alleging that a municipal councillor breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting on a resolution supporting provincial labour law amendments.

The councillor's wife was employed by a rival union, CLAC.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to prove they brought the application within the six-week limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the councillor did not have a deemed indirect pecuniary interest because the resolution was merely a symbolic show of support over which the municipality had no jurisdiction, and any potential interest was too remote, hypothetical, and insignificant to influence his vote.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.

Following the dismissal of an application as abandoned, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The municipality sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000, while the self‑represented applicant sought costs of $880.

The court held that the municipality was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the court reduced the quantum significantly because the issues raised by the applicant were important and not frivolous, and the dispute might have been avoided had the municipality provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard before passing the resolution.

The court awarded reduced costs and disbursements in favour of the municipality.

The applicant elector brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent town councillor had a conflict of interest when he voted to approve a grant to the local Chamber of Commerce.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest because he owned a business and property in the town and was a member of the Chamber.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent did not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the grant.

The court further held that even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was exempt as being insignificant and in common with electors generally, and any contravention would have been saved as a good faith error in judgment.