Kacie Layton

The appellant operates a licensed cannabis micro-cultivation facility on agriculturally zoned land.

The respondent municipality took the position that the zoning by-law prohibited this use, prompting the appellant to seek a rezoning amendment and a declaration from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The appellant subsequently brought a Superior Court application for a declaration that the by-law did not prohibit his use.

The application judge adjourned the matter, finding it premature and potentially moot pending the administrative proceedings.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction to interpret the by-law.

Exercising its discretion to decide the application, the Court held that the by-law's prohibition of a 'Medical Marihuana Production Facility' did not apply to the appellant's micro-cultivation facility.

The applicant, representing indirect waterfront property owners, sought judicial review of the Town of Georgina's process for addressing ownership and use of lakeside properties along a municipal road allowance.

The applicant argued the Town unfairly denied building permits and unilaterally determined road allowance boundaries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Town's adoption of an action plan was a work in progress and did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The court also declined to grant mandatory relief, noting that the ownership dispute could be more appropriately resolved through other legal processes, such as an appeal under the Building Code Act or an application under the Boundaries Act.