Norman Edward Davidson

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellants and their representatives following the dismissal of a consent appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appellants and their representatives, who were deemed indirect parties due to their collective interest and orchestration of the appeal, engaged in conduct that was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Tribunal awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the appellants and the indirect parties jointly and severally, finding their behaviour to be an abuse of process.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever a shoreline access parcel.

The appellants, who owned a cottage 10 km away, appealed the consent.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' representative and their planning witness had a collective interest in thwarting the severance.

The Tribunal disqualified the planning witness due to a lack of objectivity and found the appeal disclosed no legitimate land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal under section 53(31) of the Planning Act, finding it to be an abuse of process, a delay tactic, and vexatious.