J. Streisfield

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to compel further discovery and production of documents from the defendants, specifically seeking unredacted daytimers and a fourth re-attendance for discovery.

The court granted leave to bring the motion but dismissed the substantive requests, noting the long-standing knowledge of the daytimers, the imminent 20-day trial, and the unreasonableness of ordering a further re-attendance at this late stage.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding defendants.

The moving party defendant brought a motion to compel the responding party plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery, and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer most of the contested questions, finding them relevant to the pleadings, but declined to order production of communications between counsel and experts or the experts' files, citing a lack of factual foundation for improper influence.

The plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery, and the moving party was awarded costs in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for various procedural relief, including leave to bring the motion after setting the action down for trial, further examinations for discovery, and further documentary production.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1) due to substantial amendments to the pleadings.

The court ordered further examinations of certain defendants and non-parties, and ordered the defendants to serve further and better supplementary affidavits of documents.

Timetables were set for expert reports and further motions.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiff in the cause, while costs of a prior motion were awarded to the defendants in the cause.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to settle a previous order, fix a timetable, and order reciprocal property inspections.

The court found that the reciprocal inspections had already been consented to in a prior order and through undertakings, and ordered them to proceed.

The court also addressed the costs of a previous motion, finding divided success and ordering that each party bear their own costs.

The Town of Richmond Hill appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved the Town's official plan policies regarding parkland dedication but imposed a 25% cap on the alternative requirement under s. 42 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of the Planning Act was unreasonable.

The Court held that the legislation expressly grants municipalities the authority to set the alternative parkland dedication rate by by-law, and the OMB does not have the jurisdiction to impose a cap or fix a specific rate through its power to approve official plan policies.