Janet Bradley

NAV Canada brought a motion seeking leave to amend its Statement of Issues for a second time and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.

The proposed amendment sought to abandon legal arguments regarding nominal value for special purpose properties and shift to valuation methodology arguments, following recent appellate decisions.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion to amend, finding that NAV Canada failed to provide a compelling reason for the late change, having waited over a year after the relevant appellate decisions were released.

Consequently, the request for an adjournment was deemed moot and dismissed.

The City of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 117.

The City argued the Board erred in law by concluding that an Official Plan cannot be specific with respect to performance standards, such as height limits, and by failing to consider the evidence of the City's witnesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's decision to prefer flexible policies over prescriptive wording in this specific context was reasonable and within its jurisdiction.

The Court also found no error in the Board's treatment of the evidence.

The appellants sought to operate a commercial paintball facility in an area zoned as a 'Private Park'.

The motion judge determined that the facility fell under the definition of a 'Place of Recreation' rather than a 'Public Park' or 'Private Park', and thus required a zoning by-law amendment as a new commercial use.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's sensible conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent municipality was successful in defending an application and sought costs of $7,689.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued costs should be denied because the respondent introduced facts in its factum regarding the existence of private parks that were not included in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had addressed the issue and could have easily verified the public record prior to the hearing.

The court awarded the respondent its claimed costs of $7,689.00.

Property owners sought declarations that a proposed paintball facility on land zoned “rural” was a permitted use under a municipal zoning by-law.

The municipality maintained the proposed use constituted a commercial recreational activity requiring rezoning.

Applying modern principles of statutory interpretation to municipal by-laws and considering the zoning by-law within the broader framework of the municipality’s Official Plan, the court held that a “Private Park” under the by-law referred to passive recreational open space intended for limited private use rather than commercial recreation offered to the public.

The court concluded the proposed paintball facility more closely resembled a “Place of Recreation” where recreation is provided for a fee and therefore constituted a new commercial use.

As new commercial uses in the rural designation required a zoning amendment, the applicants’ request for declaratory relief was refused.

The City of Ottawa appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that allowed an official plan amendment proposed by the respondent, which the City Council had previously refused.

The central issue was whether the OMB erred in law by failing to 'have regard to' the Council's decision under s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is not required to apply a highly deferential standard of review to Council decisions, but must carefully scrutinize and consider them.

Finding that the OMB had properly analyzed and addressed each of the Council's reasons for refusal, the majority dismissed the appeal.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued notices of proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Touché Resto-Lounge for overcrowding and unauthorized alcohol tasting.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The panel accepted the joint submission, finding that the licensee contravened the Liquor Licence Act and regulations.

The panel ordered a 25-day suspension of the liquor licence and added a condition requiring licensed security personnel on specific nights.

The licensee brought a motion to adjourn the hearing, arguing that the panel was not fully bilingual and therefore could not properly conduct the hearing in French as requested under the French Language Services Act.

The licensee contended that both panel members must be fluent in French to understand the nuances of the arguments.

The Registrar opposed the motion, arguing that the panel met the requirements of the Act and the government's guidelines for French language services, as one member was fluent in French and an interpreter was provided.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding that it was capable of fully understanding the proceedings and conducting the hearing in accordance with its obligations under the French Language Services Act.

The respondent operated a public parking garage as a legal non-conforming use under a new comprehensive zoning by-law.

The new by-law contained performance standards identical to those in the former by-law.

The respondent introduced valet parking, which contravened these performance standards, and was convicted of breaching the by-law.

The conviction was quashed on appeal, but the Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal and restored the conviction.

The Court held that subjecting a legal non-conforming use to performance standards identical to those in place when the use was acquired does not prevent the use of the property within the meaning of the Planning Act.