Harold George Elston

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated October 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant, a property developer, appealed the dismissal of its application to quash an Interim Control By-Law (ICBL) enacted by the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

The ICBL restricted permitted uses within a designated area to those lawfully existing on the date of enactment and required such uses to be conducted entirely within existing buildings.

The appellant had obtained 11 building permits for a 43-unit condominium development with recreational amenities, had commenced construction, and had undertaken extensive site servicing work, all with Township approval.

The application judge dismissed the appeal, finding the property was not exempt under the Planning Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the development should be viewed as an integrated whole and that the issuance of 11 building permits for constituent elements of the development provided protection under section 34(9)(b) of the Planning Act.

The court found no genuine planning justification for the ICBL and noted it appeared designed to appease local opposition rather than serve legitimate planning purposes.

The applicant, the Mayor of the Township of Springwater, sought judicial review of a decision by the Township's Compliance Audit Committee to order a second, 'forensic' audit of his election campaign finances after finding the first audit unsatisfactory.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the court should not intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found that the Committee's decision to order a second audit involved the interpretation of its home statute and was not a true question of jurisdiction.

The court also limited the Committee's standing on the judicial review to jurisdictional issues and confirmed that the Committee's term had not expired.

The moving party, an accounting firm appointed to conduct a compliance audit of a mayoral candidate's election campaign finances, brought a motion to dismiss an application for judicial review against it.

The applicant sought to quash the auditor's report.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the auditor was not exercising a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when preparing the report.

The court held that the report was merely a technical step and not determinative of legal rights, making it plain and obvious that the application against the auditor was devoid of merit.

The moving party, an accounting firm appointed to conduct a compliance audit of a mayoral candidate's election campaign finances, brought a motion to dismiss an application for judicial review against it.

The applicant sought to quash the auditor's report.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the auditor was not exercising a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act when preparing the report.

The court held that the report was merely a technical step and not determinative of legal rights, making it plain and obvious that the application against the auditor was devoid of merit.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.