4 total
Overpayment for non-developable land was recoverable in restitution.
Application arising from a commercial land sale dispute over the calculation of acreage payable under an agreement of purchase and sale for development land.
The court interpreted the contractual definition of 'Net Area' to exclude lands not specifically developable for industrial, commercial, or residential use, including environmental features, a road right-of-way, and lands burdened by a hydro easement unless remediated.
The applicant had closed under protest while facing practical compulsion arising from a downstream sale and was permitted to pursue restitution rather than breach of contract.
The respondents were found to have been unjustly enriched by retaining an overpayment of $2,442,595 with no juristic reason for doing so.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2020.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.
Substantial indemnity costs of $12,000 awarded against applicant for bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion.
The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.
The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.
The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.
The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.
The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.
Motion to amend pleadings denied as the proposed appeal of a building official's communication lacked legal tenability.
The applicant sought leave to amend its notice of application to add the interim Chief Building Official as a respondent and to appeal his alleged 'decision' that the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person' regarding a prior Unsafe Order.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments were not legally tenable.
The court held that the interim official's communication was not an appealable 'decision' under section 25(1) of the Building Code Act, as standing is a determination for the court, not the official.