Jody E. Johnson

This ruling addresses a costs application following the dismissal of an injunction application brought by the applicants against the respondent City.

The applicants had sought to prevent the destruction of municipal election records, alleging wrongdoing in the 2014 municipal election.

The injunction was initially granted on an interim basis, pending a pre-enquete hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice, which ultimately found no basis for charges.

The Superior Court then dismissed the injunction application.

The City sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued against liability for costs, claiming public interest litigant status.

The court found the applicants liable for costs due to their lack of success, the serious and unfounded nature of their allegations, and their vexatious conduct during litigation.

The court rejected the public interest litigant claim, particularly for one applicant who had sought a personal financial settlement to abandon the allegations.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the City, considering the in camera nature of the pre-enquete and the right of citizens to lay private informations.

The applicant property owner brought an application to quash a municipal by-law that commenced expropriation proceedings for its land.

The municipality passed the by-law to implement a downtown redevelopment plan that did not yet conform to its official plan.

The applicant argued the by-law violated s. 24(1) of the Planning Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 24(3) of the Planning Act permits a municipality to pass by-laws to take preliminary steps, such as seeking approval and giving notice of expropriation, before an official plan is amended.

The Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned two provisions of its Development Charges By-law.

The Board had excluded capital costs incurred by Conservation Halton and reinstated six categories of residential development instead of the four adopted by the Region.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal regarding the Conservation Halton costs, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 5(3) of the Development Charges Act was not open to serious debate.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the development categories, finding serious debate over whether the Board had the authority to impose its view of fairness and reasonableness without finding non-compliance with the Act.

The plaintiff brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations regarding the construction of a floating dock and boathouse by his neighbors on a lake.

The neighbors had built the structure without municipal building permits or provincial work/occupancy permits, relying on the municipality's position that it lacked jurisdiction over Crown lands and the province's position that floating structures were exempt.

The court held that the municipality's zoning by-laws and the Building Code Act apply to private individuals constructing on Crown lands covered by water.

Furthermore, the court found that the provincial regulations under the Public Lands Act require work and occupancy permits for such structures, rejecting the government's interpretation as absurd.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

Two applicants sought judicial review of municipal by-laws implementing a volume-based solid waste user fee and associated rebate program introduced by the City of Toronto.

The applicants argued that the waste collection charge was in substance an unlawful tax affecting provincial tax ratio rules and that the rebate constituted an impermissible redistribution of property taxes contrary to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The court held that the waste charge was a valid user fee because a sufficient nexus existed between the amount collected and the cost of providing waste services.

The court further held that the rebate was properly characterized as a municipal grant authorized under s. 83 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 rather than a tax rebate.

The applications to quash the relevant by-law provisions were dismissed.