George H. Rust-D’Eye

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a partially successful application for judicial review regarding the municipal reimbursement of legal expenses for city councillors.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $15,000 payable by the city, noting the lack of complexity and partial success.

The court declined to award costs against the individual councillors, and ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to one councillor who successfully opposed the relief sought against him personally.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner and Showline Limited appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an adjudicator's order granting access to records held by the City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO).

The central issue was whether TEDCO's officers were 'appointed or chosen by or under the authority of the council of the municipality' under s. 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal applied a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, finding that because the City is TEDCO's sole shareholder and appoints its directors, the officers appointed by those directors are chosen under the City's authority.

The appeals were allowed, and TEDCO was deemed subject to the Act.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision striking down a by-law that limited the size of billboards to 80 square feet.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that while the by-law infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter, it was saved under section 1 as it minimally impaired the respondent's freedom of expression.

The appellants appealed the costs awarded by the lower court judge following a lengthy hearing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the submissions and found no error in principle in the judge's exercise of discretion regarding the costs order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants challenged a municipal resolution passed by the City of Sarnia authorizing a judicial inquiry into certain land transactions involving the former Town of Clearwater.

The appellants argued that the resolution was vague, lacked particularity, and was a colourable attempt to conduct a substitute police investigation, thereby infringing the federal criminal law power.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the resolution was validly enacted under s. 100(1) of the Municipal Act, as it was directed at matters of municipal good governance and public business.

The Court also upheld the quashing of summonses issued to city officials, finding that the subjective intent of individual councillors was irrelevant to the validity of the resolution.