John Mascarin

The plaintiff, Frank Miele, a failed mayoral candidate, brought a lawsuit alleging corruption and fraud against the entire municipal council and mayor of Vaughan, seeking $210 million in damages and disqualification from office.

Miele later admitted his allegations were baseless and apologized.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $1.2 million.

The court rejected Miele's arguments for reduced costs, finding his testimony inconsistent and his claims of lack of understanding incredible given his extensive municipal finance background.

The court ruled that bringing a meritless lawsuit is an abuse of process, not public interest litigation, and ordered Miele to pay substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, including $813,101.99 to the City of Vaughan.

The applicant municipal council sought an order under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to allow conflicted councillors to participate in litigation decisions.

A ratepayer had sued eight of the nine councillors personally for $210 million, leaving the council without a quorum to manage the litigation.

The court granted the order to ensure the municipality could function, but imposed a condition requiring the conflicted councillors to obtain judicial approval before agreeing to any settlement of the litigation, analogous to the process for parties under disability.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, Mayor of Belleville, breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council debate and voting on a highway improvement project in which he had a pecuniary interest.

The court found that the respondent did breach the Act by voting on the project, which involved the acquisition of property owned by a company in which he held shares.

However, the court applied the saving provision under section 10(2) of the Act, finding that the contravention was committed through an honest error in judgment, and therefore declined to remove the respondent from office.

The applicant, a body rub parlour operator, appealed the Chief Building Official's (CBO) decision to issue a building permit to a competitor (the respondent) in the same building.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of a zoning by-law that prohibited certain commercial uses on properties "fronting" on the west side of Victoria Park Avenue for a depth of 60m.

The building's main entrance was on a side street, but its side wall ran along Victoria Park Avenue.

The court found the applicant had standing as a business competitor and that the CBO's decision should be reviewed on a reasonableness standard.

Interpreting "front" in the context of the by-law's policy to organize land uses along the main thoroughfare, the court concluded that the building "fronted" on Victoria Park Avenue.

Therefore, the respondent's body rub parlour was not a permitted use in that zone, and the building permit was improperly issued.

A municipal elector sought a declaration under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the mayor contravened s. 5 by speaking and voting on a motion requiring him to personally repay an alleged municipal budget over‑expenditure.

The court considered whether the application was brought within the limitation period under s. 9 and whether any exceptions under s. 4 applied.

The court held that although the application was timely and the statutory exceptions did not apply, the mayor did not possess a real pecuniary interest because the municipality lacked legal authority to require personal repayment.

As the proposed financial sanction was ultra vires and therefore a nullity, there was no genuine pecuniary interest engaging s. 5.

The application seeking removal from office and restitution was dismissed.