Ira Todd Kagan

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Town of Ajax, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the new owners of the subject lands.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a finalized Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

Case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for two motions for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motions to proceed by videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) brought a stated case to the Divisional Court asking whether parties to a first-level appeal under s. 38(1) of the Local Planning Appeal Act, 2017 have the right to cross-examine witnesses.

The majority of the Divisional Court held that the term 'examine' in s. 42(3)(b) of the Act and s. 3 of O. Reg. 102/18 includes cross-examination.

Therefore, parties are precluded from cross-examining witnesses at an oral hearing or cross-examining affiants prior to a hearing.

The Court found that the legislature intended to create an expeditious, investigative process where the Tribunal controls the evidence, expressly overriding the common law right to cross-examination.

Six proposed intervenors brought motions for leave to intervene in a stated case before the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017.

The stated case concerns the Tribunal's power to call evidence and permit cross-examination in planning appeals.

The applicants and respondents generally did not oppose the interventions, provided they did not delay the proceedings.

One proposed intervenor, the Toronto Port Authority, also sought to be added as a party to obtain independent appeal rights.

The court granted intervenor status to all six proposed intervenors, finding they had a real interest and could make useful and distinct contributions.

However, the court denied the Toronto Port Authority's request for party status, concluding that granting it would unduly delay the determination of the main parties' rights.

On appeal from a Divisional Court decision, the Court of Appeal considered whether the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) had jurisdiction to impose a 25 percent cap on the alternative parkland dedication requirement under section 42 of the Planning Act.

The Town of Richmond Hill had adopted an Official Plan policy allowing for parkland dedication at a rate of one hectare per 300 dwelling units.

Developers challenged this policy, and the OMB imposed a 25 percent cap on the amount of land required to be conveyed.

The Divisional Court set aside the cap, finding the OMB lacked authority to impose it.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the legislature has given municipalities exclusive authority to determine the rate under section 42(3), subject only to the requirement that an Official Plan contain specific policies dealing with parkland provision and the use of the alternative requirement.

The OMB's role is limited to reviewing whether such policies are appropriate and accord with provincial policies, not to set or cap the rate itself.

The Town of Richmond Hill appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved the Town's official plan policies regarding parkland dedication but imposed a 25% cap on the alternative requirement under s. 42 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of the Planning Act was unreasonable.

The Court held that the legislation expressly grants municipalities the authority to set the alternative parkland dedication rate by by-law, and the OMB does not have the jurisdiction to impose a cap or fix a specific rate through its power to approve official plan policies.

The moving party sought leave to admit an affidavit on its pending motion for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the points raised in the affidavit regarding the public importance of the issues could be made by counsel without the affidavit, that other municipalities had already been granted leave to intervene, and that the remaining aspects of the affidavit contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision imposing a cap on the alternative requirement for parkland dedication under s. 42(3) of the Planning Act.

Several other municipalities sought leave to intervene in the motion for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, arguing the Board's decision could impact their own parkland dedication policies.

The Divisional Court granted the motions to intervene, finding the issue transcended the immediate parties and the proposed interveners could offer distinct and useful perspectives on an issue of public importance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal, which was dismissed on the basis of prematurity.

The successful respondents sought costs.

The moving party argued each party should bear its own costs due to the public interest and novelty of the issue.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the usual rule of costs following the event applied, especially since the motion was dismissed for prematurity.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive to the clients represented by Mr. Streisfield.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal a preliminary decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the interpretation of parkland dedication provisions under the Planning Act.

The Town argued that the Board could not set an alternative park dedication rate in an Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding it premature.

The Court held that the issue was not a discrete threshold question and that granting leave would improperly fragment the ongoing Board proceedings.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed their motion to remove the responding parties' solicitor of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court found that the Board correctly applied the test for removal of a solicitor and made factual findings that no retainer existed and no confidential information was imparted.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed as the moving parties failed to show an error of law or good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The Town of Richmond Hill sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that granted a request to rehear part of a previous OMB decision.

The Town argued the Board made errors in its decision and misunderstood the issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's errors were merely descriptive and did not indicate a misapprehension of the evidence or issues.

The Court also found no error in law in the Board's finding that the original panel misunderstood witness evidence.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding a secondary plan.

The proposed appeal challenged the OMB's findings that active parkland and developer-dedicated parklands are not permitted in 'protected countryside' areas under the Greenbelt Plan, and its approval of a municipal policy to acquire such lands at minimal or no cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the OMB's determinations involved the interpretation of policy statements rather than questions of law, and were therefore not subject to appeal.

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing entirely with the reasons and conclusions of the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $5,000.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.

The appellants sought a new trial, alleging errors in the trial judge's reasons in a fraudulent misrepresentation action arising from a land purchase.

The court held there was ample evidence supporting each alternative basis on which the trial judge relied and that it was open to the trial judge to conclude the appellants failed to prove fraudulent representations.

The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error in the treatment of the evidence, including evidence concerning land value and the alleged representation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs on a solicitor and client basis.