Eric K. Gillespie

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 appellant First Nation appealed a costs decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the 'polluter pays' principle and by not considering the appellant's First Nation status when assessing whether the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, costs are only awarded for unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct.

The Court found that the 'polluter pays' principle does not apply to costs considerations and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the respondent's conduct in defending the appeal was not unreasonable.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed limestone quarry.

The appellants argued the OMB breached procedural fairness during a partial re-hearing and misapprehended evidence regarding at-risk turtles and noise levels.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the appellants had consented to the re-hearing process and that the OMB's evidentiary findings were reasonable.

However, the Court granted the appeal on one issue, finding the OMB erred in law by proposing noise mitigation measures that might require access to private lands without evidence of feasibility, and remitted that issue to the OMB.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that confirmed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project on Amherst Island.

The appellant raised nine issues, including the admission of expert evidence, consideration of mitigation measures outside the approval, factual findings regarding wildlife, and a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary and procedural decisions were reasonable exercises of its discretion and statutory authority.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's factual findings or admit fresh evidence aimed at challenging those findings, as appeals to the court are strictly limited to questions of law under the Environmental Protection Act.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $6,156.71 following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a stay.

The appellant argued that as a public interest litigant, no costs should be awarded, noting it had ultimately obtained the interim remedy from the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The court agreed with the appellant and ordered no costs for the motion.

The appellant, representing Ontario grain farmers, applied under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a declaration interpreting a regulation that restricted the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The appellant argued the regulation was unworkable and sought an interpretation that would effectively delay its implementation.

The motion judge struck the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was not ambiguous and the appellant was improperly seeking to rewrite the regulation rather than resolve a genuine interpretive dispute.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

The appellant brought an urgent motion to stay physical work on a renewable energy project pending its appeal of an Environmental Review Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had dismissed a similar motion, with reasons to follow.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that without the Tribunal's reasons, it could not assess whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm from the limited vegetation clearing proposed, and noted the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant distributor appealed a Tribunal decision finding it had improperly terminated a dealership agreement with the respondent dealer.

The Tribunal had awarded damages and costs to the dealer.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that Regulation 123/06 under the Farm Implements Act applied retrospectively to the agreement.

The majority held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the unreasonableness of the distributor's refusal to renew were questions of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal.

However, the Court unanimously set aside the Tribunal's award of damages for obsolete assets as an error of law, and quashed the costs award, remitting it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

An agricultural industry association sought a stay of a provincial regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid‑treated seeds pending further compliance time, arguing farmers would suffer economic harm due to regulatory timing requirements.

The province opposed and brought a cross‑motion to strike the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that injunctive relief against the Crown is highly restricted and unavailable absent circumstances such as deliberate flouting of the law, which were not present.

Even if relief were available, the applicant failed to meet the RJR‑MacDonald test for an interlocutory stay because the alleged harm was speculative and compensable in damages and the balance of convenience favoured environmental protection.

The court also held the application improperly sought to rewrite or delay the operation of a regulation rather than determine legal rights and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Following dismissal of an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as out of time, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant argued the matter was public interest litigation and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that applications under the Act do not attract a blanket public interest exception and that unsuccessful applicants may be ordered to pay costs.

Although the respondents sought substantial indemnity or significant partial indemnity costs, the court found the claimed hours excessive and declined to award enhanced costs.

Costs were fixed at a reduced all-inclusive amount reflecting reasonableness and access to justice considerations.

The appellant, CNH, appealed a decision of the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

During an attendance before the Divisional Court, the parties consented to refer the matter back to the Tribunal but could not agree on costs.

Following the Tribunal's subsequent decision, both parties sought costs for the earlier court attendance.

The court found neither party was entitled to the excessive costs sought and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the attendance fixed at $2,500.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, the respondents sought their costs.

The applicant argued it should be shielded from costs as a public interest litigant, but the court found it failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the test.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Preston Sand and $9,000 for the Township.

Preston Sand's request to have costs awarded personally against the individual members of the applicant corporation was dismissed, as it failed to prove the corporation was a 'man of straw' and failed to provide adequate notice to the non-parties.

The applicant sought to be relieved from paying costs under the public interest principle after its application was dismissed.

The Divisional Court declined to deprive the respondents of costs, noting that while the applicant had no pecuniary interest, the application was without legal basis given clear and recent precedent.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to each of the respondents.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Environmental Review Tribunal's revocation of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Tribunal had found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's turtle due to increased road mortality.

The Court of Appeal held the Divisional Court erred in its standard of review application, finding the Tribunal's decision on serious and irreversible harm was reasonable despite lacking precise numerical data.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed the Tribunal erred in revoking the approval without allowing the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the remedy.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding zoning by-law amendments for an aggregate operation.

The court applied the Enbridge Gas test and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the explanation of inadvertence for the delay was insufficient.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal challenged the Board's factual weighing of prejudice in excluding expert testimony, which did not raise a meritorious question of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry's alleged decision to exempt a wind farm project from compliance with the Endangered Species Act regarding the Redside Dace.

The Ministry had communicated via email that there were no Redside Dace issues in the project area, and thus the proponent did not need to apply for a permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's emails did not constitute an exercise of a statutory power of decision subject to judicial review, applying the precedent from Sierra Club.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages against the City for groundwater contamination caused by road salt, which allegedly prevented the development of a medical office building with underground parking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence that it actually intended to build such a development and subsequently excluded the appellant's expert evidence, which was based on that rejected factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, or costs award.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party, Windlectric Inc., proposed a wind energy project on Amherst Island.

The Ministry of the Environment deemed the application complete, initiating the technical review phase.

The responding party, an association opposing the project, sought judicial review to quash the completeness determination, arguing the application lacked an adequate emergency response plan.

Windlectric brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that a completeness check is an administrative step, not a statutory power of decision or a matter subject to public law remedies.

The court also held that the application for judicial review was premature, as the administrative process and available appeals had not been exhausted.