Ian Rowe

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to stay a decision of the County Council lifting a stop work order and confirming a special permit that allowed the respondent landowner to cut trees on its property.

The applicant argued that the County Council denied it natural justice by accepting reply evidence without allowing rebuttal and by allowing two councillors who had not heard the evidence to vote.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding natural justice, as the reply evidence was responsive to unexpected assertions and the two mistakenly recorded votes made no mathematical difference to the outcome.

The court also found the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to change the designation of the appellants from two individuals to a ratepayers' association.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in its interpretation of its rules regarding minor errors and reviews.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the OMB's conclusion that the individuals who signed the appeal forms were the proper parties.

The Court also addressed a potential conflict of interest involving the moving party's counsel and adjourned the issue of costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeal of a Town's Official Plan Amendment without a hearing.

The Board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(50.1) of the Planning Act because the parts of the plan the moving party sought to modify were already in effect and were not dealt with in the Town Council's decision.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation of the Planning Act or its decision to dismiss the appeal without a full hearing on the merits.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a decision denying a property tax exemption for its children's camp.

The application judge had found the camp was primarily recreational and did not qualify as a place for the 'care of children' under s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the camp's primary purpose was the care of children in a special educational setting, integrating special needs children with others.

The court held that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to recognize the charitable and educational nature of the care provided.