3 total
Municipal conflict of interest application dismissed; applicant failed to prove councillor's employer had pecuniary interest.
The applicant, an elector, brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent municipal councillor had an indirect pecuniary interest when he voted to support a proposed nuclear waste facility.
The respondent was employed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the proponent of the facility.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that CNL had a pecuniary interest in the project, as there was insufficient evidence regarding CNL's financial arrangements and remuneration.
Application to quash municipal property standards by-law dismissed.
The applicant sought an order quashing a municipal property standards by-law, alleging it was ultra vires because it was enacted before a required official plan amendment and asserting procedural improprieties in its administration.
The court held that a municipal by-law may only be quashed for illegality or bad faith under the Municipal Act.
Although the official plan amendment came into effect after the by-law’s adoption, the Planning Act permits by-laws passed before an amendment takes effect if they will conform once the amendment is effective.
The court found the statutory saving provision applied and that the by-law was deemed to conform with the official plan when the amendment came into force.
No evidence of bad faith was established.
An E-bike is a motor vehicle, but a stay was entered for officially induced error.
The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to section 259(4)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The accused was operating an electric bicycle (E-bike) while subject to a prohibition order against driving motor vehicles.
The central issue was whether an E-bike constitutes a motor vehicle under the Criminal Code definition.
The court found that the E-bike qualified as a motor vehicle because it was capable of being propelled by an electric motor.
However, the accused successfully raised the defence of officially induced error, having consulted with police officers who advised him that driving an E-bike would not violate his prohibition order.
A judicial stay of proceedings was entered.
