Eric K. Gillespie

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion to strike the affidavits of Dr. Robert McMurtry, submitted by the responding party in an application for judicial review challenging wind turbine setback regulations.

The moving party argued the affidavits were irrelevant, contained hearsay, and that the affiant lacked expert qualifications.

The court declined to strike the affidavits in their entirety, leaving issues of relevance, hearsay, and expert qualifications to the panel hearing the merits.

However, the court struck references to studies post-dating the adoption of the regulation, as they could not have informed the regulatory decision.

The appellants, electors in the City of Vaughan, sought to appeal a Superior Court decision dismissing their application to remove the respondent mayor from office for an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act only provides a right of appeal from an order imposing a penalty under s. 10, not from a finding of no conflict.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, confirming that the Act is a complete code and does not grant electors a right of appeal when a member is found not to be in a conflict of interest.

The moving party brought a motion to quash two notices of appeal filed by the responding parties.

The responding parties sought to appeal a decision dismissing their application for an order that the moving party breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The court held that the Act is a complete code and only provides a right of appeal for orders made under section 10.

Since no section 10 order was made, there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted and the notices of appeal were quashed.

The applicant sought a stay of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding minor variances granted to her neighbour, pending the determination of her application for judicial review.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm because the OMB hearing is a hearing de novo where the onus remains on the respondent.

The balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the OMB hearing.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant wife appealed a decision dismissing her motion for judgment to enforce minutes of settlement.

The motions judge had found that the parties entered into a binding written settlement but directed a trial to determine whether there was a subsequent oral agreement to vary the terms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in failing to enforce the binding written contract, especially since the husband had not brought a cross-motion regarding the alleged oral variation.

A concurring opinion noted that under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act, any agreement to amend a domestic contract must be in writing, rendering the alleged oral variation unenforceable.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeals against the City's official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the redevelopment of a hospital site.

The moving party opposed the demolition of the old hospital building, raising environmental, affordable housing, and heritage preservation concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any of the raised issues.

Following the plaintiff's successful appeal to certify an environmental claim as a class proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs awards for the certification motion, the Divisional Court appeal, and the Court of Appeal.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs for all stages, imputing success at the certification motion stage despite the plaintiff having substantially narrowed the claim on appeal.

Recognizing the public interest nature of the environmental class action under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 for the motion, $65,000 for the Divisional Court appeal, and $50,000 for the Court of Appeal.

The applicant, a citizens' group, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto and TTC's decision to construct a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West.

The applicant argued the project breached s. 24(1) of the Planning Act for failing to conform with the official plan and that the City failed to complete a proper environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the environmental assessment challenge was an impermissible collateral attack on the Minister's decision to refuse a 'bump up' request.

The Court also held that the project conformed with the transportation policies of the newly approved Official Plan.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against the respondent for environmental contamination caused by a nickel refinery in Port Colborne.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action.

The Court found that the appellant's narrowed claim for property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, alleging that nickel oxide emissions caused a decline in property values following a 2000 Ministry of the Environment announcement.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused certification, finding the class arbitrary and individual issues overwhelming.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action, holding that the narrowed claim focusing solely on property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiff.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to proceed with the construction of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West, arguing it contravened the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court released a short endorsement granting the application and setting aside the City's decision to proceed with the project, with formal reasons to follow.

The court noted the urgency of the matter to avoid wasted construction costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a commercial development, including a Wal-Mart, near a spiritual retreat centre.

The moving party argued the Board erred in its treatment of the retreat centre's freedom of religion claims under s. 2(a) of the Charter, specifically regarding the non-physical, spiritual compatibility of the proposed development with the retreat's practices of quiet contemplation.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the competing interests and the application of the Charter to such land use compatibility issues raised questions of province-wide public importance.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited and others for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, as well as the subsequent costs order.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed the claims to real property devaluation, abandoning health impairment claims.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed class definition was arbitrary, individual issues would overwhelm common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court also upheld the costs award of $184,332.14 against the appellant, finding no error in the motion judge's application of costs principles under the Class Proceedings Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.