6 total
Appeal allowed and matter remitted as the Board failed to apply modern statutory interpretation principles.
The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the classification of multi-unit rental residential properties under a realty tax incentive scheme.
The Board had interpreted the phrase 'a building permit' in O. Reg. 282/98 to mean any building permit issued for the development, allowing the respondents to benefit from the incentive despite the project being well underway.
The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in principle by failing to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation.
The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh determination.
Judicial review dismissed; municipal council retained broad discretion to deny property tax rebate grants.
The applicants, commercial real estate developers, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Council to deny their applications for property tax rebate grants under a community improvement plan by-law.
The applicants argued that because their projects met the threshold eligibility criteria, the City was required to approve the grants.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the by-law and governing legislation conferred broad discretion on the Council to consider other factors, including whether the grants were economically necessary for the projects to proceed.
The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded costs to the City.
Motion for leave to appeal TLAB decision adjourned as premature pending ongoing internal administrative review.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) dismissing their application for minor variances.
Concurrently, the moving parties sought an internal review of the decision under TLAB's rules, and the TLAB Chair directed that a review of ten of the twelve variances proceed.
The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal premature, as the administrative decision-making process had not ended.
To prevent fragmentation and misallocation of resources, the court adjourned the motion pending the final determination of the TLAB review process.
Leave to appeal OMB decision approving residential development on heritage lands denied.
The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Chair dismissing their Request for Review of a Hearing Officer's decision.
The Hearing Officer had approved an Official Plan amendment allowing residential development on lands, parts of which were designated as a cultural heritage landscape.
The moving party argued the OMB erred by not giving deference to the factual findings of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) regarding the extent of the heritage landscape, raising issue estoppel and abuse of process.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no question of law, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB decision, and that the matter was not of sufficient general importance.
Motion to adjourn leave to appeal granted pending judicial review of the underlying tribunal decision.
The appellant sought to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.
The appellant discovered that a witness who testified at the Board hearing had previously made a presentation to Board members, prompting the appellant to commence an application for judicial review regarding procedural fairness.
The court granted the adjournment, noting that it would be an inefficient use of court resources to hear the leave to appeal motion when the underlying decision could potentially be declared a nullity through the judicial review application.
Mandatory retroactive repeal of heritage designation upheld; no bad faith by municipality.
The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law repealing a heritage designation affecting its hotel property and sought related relief concerning heritage property tax rebates.
The municipality had approved demolition of the original designated heritage building in 1996 but did not repeal the designation by-law until 2012, when it enacted a repealing by-law retroactive to the demolition approval date pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act.
The applicant alleged illegality and bad faith, arguing that the municipality failed to provide prior notice and enacted the repeal retroactively to defeat its tax rebate claims.
The court held that prior notice was not required where the Act mandated repeal following approval of demolition, and that the retroactive repeal was a reasonable step to comply belatedly with statutory requirements.
The applicant failed to establish bad faith or illegality, and further failed to meet additional eligibility criteria for the heritage tax rebate program.
