James Feehely

The court considered motions for security for costs and for summary judgment regarding a possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) in a dispute over helicopter repairs.

Mansfield Heliflight Inc. sought security for costs from USCAN Aviation Sales Ltd., while USCAN cross-moved for summary judgment to confirm its possessory lien and for an order requiring Mansfield to provide security.

The court dismissed the security for costs motion, finding USCAN had a good chance of partial success and that the defendant conceded some amount was owing.

The court granted a declaration that USCAN has a possessory lien over the helicopter, but declined to order Mansfield to pay security into court, maintaining the status quo until the amount of the lien is determined.

The Township of Adjala-Tosorontio sought an interim and permanent injunction against the respondents, Timothy Saunders and Alvin Lindhorst, to prohibit the placement of waste and derelict vehicles on their property, citing violations of the Property Standards By-Law.

The respondents argued the application was statute-barred under the Building Code Act and claimed legal non-conforming rights and agricultural zoning.

The court dismissed the respondents' arguments, finding the application was not time-barred as it was an enforcement action under s. 15 of the Act, not a prosecution under s. 36(8).

The court also found the property was zoned "Open Space Conservation" without non-conforming status for a junk yard.

The Township's application for an injunction was granted, ordering the property to be cleaned up, and inviting submissions on costs.

The Township of Oro-Medonte and a ratepayers' alliance appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that repealed a zoning by-law amendment aimed at regulating short-term rentals.

The Tribunal had found the by-law created a new land use prohibition that was overbroad and not in the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness, correctly interpreted the existing zoning by-law, and made no error of law in concluding the amendment did not represent good planning.

The applicants, two municipalities, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted them party status but limited the evidence they could present regarding a proposed aggregate pit.

The Board restricted their evidence to the incremental impact of truck traffic on their roads, preventing them from comparing alternative haul routes.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decisions as the limitations effectively prevented the Board from considering mandatory statutory factors under the Aggregate Resources Act, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The appellant car wash business appealed an Ontario Municipal Board order requiring it to pay $86,943.20 in costs to the respondent municipality after its claim for injurious affection was dismissed.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and the Board placed undue reliance on the respondent's $15,000 settlement offer.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under the Expropriations Act to award costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct in refusing the offer and proceeding with a meritless claim.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a building permit issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) for the construction of a riding arena on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appeal judge had found that the arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that the CBO failed to consider the Official Plan's major development policies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard instead of reasonableness to the CBO's interpretation of the home by-law.

The Court found the CBO's conclusion that the arena was a permitted principal agricultural building was reasonable and correct.

Furthermore, the Court held that conformity with the Official Plan is not 'other applicable law' under the Building Code Act that would justify refusing a permit.