Kathleen Erin Coulter

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding municipality in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The applicant, a community organization, sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision dismissing their request to reconsider a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment permitted a housing development for people leaving homelessness on a property already containing seniors' housing.

The applicant argued the development should be restricted to seniors leaving homelessness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, as restricting zoning by age would violate equality rights.

The Court also found no procedural unfairness despite inappropriate submissions by the respondent's counsel, though it denied costs to the successful respondent as a result.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated November 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to joint submissions, the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The appellant municipality appealed a Divisional Court order that quashed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision assuming jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a municipal servicing agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, as it only assumed jurisdiction on a prima facie basis and deferred the final determination of forum to the Superior Court.

Because the Ontario Land Tribunal Act only permits appeals of final decisions, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was restored.

At a case management conference, the parties agreed to hold the applicant's application for judicial review in abeyance pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on a request for reconsideration under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The court endorsed the agreement, setting a timetable for the filing of amended notices and application records following the release of the Tribunal's decision.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review and sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

After the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the judicial review application appeared to raise the same issues.

The court found the application was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided and did not raise any factual errors outside the scope of the statutory appeal mechanism.

The application for judicial review was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The moving party, a neighbourhood association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a development application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without providing reasons, consistent with its usual practice.

On the issue of costs, the court rejected the moving party's argument that it was a public interest litigant, noting it was directly impacted by the development.

However, recognizing the association's lack of assets, the court reduced the requested costs of $32,272.16 and ordered the moving party to pay $10,000 to the responding developers.

The court also directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1 regarding the related application for judicial review.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal asserting jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a water and sewage servicing agreement with the respondent municipality.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the agreement's termination clause by failing to apply a pragmatic and common-sense approach and by considering subsequent conduct without finding ambiguity.

Because the agreement had validly terminated, the statutory basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Municipal Act was removed.

The appeal was granted and the Tribunal's order was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a resolution by the City of Brantford to sell a municipal golf course to fund affordable housing.

The applicant argued the City breached its procedural by-law, failed to notify First Nations under an agreement, and that councillors had a disqualifying bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural error, that the applicant lacked standing to raise the First Nations notice issue, and that the high threshold for establishing a closed mind by municipal councillors was not met.

The application was also dismissed due to a seven-month delay in bringing the proceeding.

The respondent municipality brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant, a newly formed corporation seeking judicial review of a municipal resolution to sell a golf course.

The applicant conceded it had insufficient assets but argued it had a good chance of success and was engaged in public interest litigation.

The court found the applicant did not have a good chance of success on its procedural, notice, or bias arguments, and that the matter was not public interest litigation.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to post $10,000 as security for costs.

The representative plaintiffs in two class actions against the Toronto Police Services Board for wrongful arrest and detention during the 2010 G20 Summit sought court approval for a proposed settlement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included up to $16.5 million in financial compensation, a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, commitments to reform policing of public demonstrations, and expungement of arrest records.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant non-monetary components and the risks of proceeding to trial.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, which amounted to approximately 28 percent of the recovery, as fair and reasonable.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an application regarding the sale of a property.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 11, 2020, and provided directions for the filing of materials via Caselines or a file-sharing platform.

The respondent agreed not to close the sale of the property prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

The court also provided directions for a potential motion for security for costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a City Council resolution to sell a municipal golf course and requested a stay of the decision pending the application.

During a case management teleconference, the court set a deadline for the applicant's materials and directed the parties to agree on a schedule and terms of an undertaking from the City in lieu of a stay order.

The court also addressed potential participation by the purchaser and a possible motion for security for costs by the City.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the use of residential premises for short-term rentals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs.

The court declined to provide substantive reasons, noting the common appellate practice of not giving reasons on motions for leave to appeal and the potential for further administrative proceedings on the underlying issue.

Nation Rise sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke its Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Minister had revoked the approval based on concerns about harm to bat maternity colonies, an issue not raised by the parties before the Environmental Review Tribunal or on appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the Minister's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Minister lacked statutory authority to raise new issues on appeal, applied the wrong legal test by using a precautionary approach, and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court also found the Minister breached procedural fairness by failing to give notice of the new issue and denying the parties an opportunity to make submissions on remedy.

The ERT's approval of the project was reinstated.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.

The appellant brought two motions: one to set aside a costs order made by a single judge on an abandoned motion for leave to appeal, and another for leave to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions.

The court found no error in the costs order, noting the appellant could have simply requested reasons under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act instead of bringing a motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal the tribunal's decision, agreeing that the appellant lacked standing under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act because he did not make oral or written submissions at the statutory public meeting.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.

The application also alleged bad faith.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing its motion to stay construction of a wind turbine project and its application for judicial review.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to halt construction, alleging violations of the Renewable Energy Approval.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's letter confirming construction was unavoidable did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision reviewable under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Consequently, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify an injunction.