Jameson S. Pritiko

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision approving the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The municipality objected to a standard cost-sharing provision for pipeline relocation, arguing it conflicted with section 26 of the Drainage Act, which would otherwise require the utility to pay 100% of relocation costs caused by drainage works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB had broad, exclusive statutory authority under the Municipal Franchises Act to prescribe the terms of the franchise renewal in the public interest, and did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction by imposing the standard cost-sharing terms.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal Appeal Committee decision upholding the refusal of a business licence for his night club.

The Divisional Court found that the hearing was procedurally unfair because the municipality's lawyer acted as both counsel and witness, and the applicant was effectively denied the right to present his case.

The court also held the decision was unreasonable as it lacked intelligible reasons explaining why the appeal was denied.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different appeal committee for reconsideration.

The applicant sought a stay of the municipality's decision to revoke its taxi licences and refuse additional licences pending an application for judicial review.

The municipality had revoked the licences based on by-law violations and non-compliance with COVID-19 orders.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged financial losses were quantifiable.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the municipality's public interest in enforcing its regulatory scheme.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.