John Pappas

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the municipality's application for an order to demolish above-ground construction on a contaminated property.

The appellants had proceeded with above-grade construction without a full building permit, having failed to obtain the required Record of Site Condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings and concluding that the demolition order was a proper exercise of discretion to enforce compliance with the Building Code Act.

The plaintiff, a municipal councillor, brought an action for defamation against a ratepayer and misfeasance in public office against the city's election compliance audit committee after the committee ordered a compliance audit of his campaign finances.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action.

The court granted the ratepayer's anti-SLAPP motion, finding her expressions related to a matter of public interest and were protected by qualified and absolute privilege.

The court also dismissed the action against the committee, finding it was immune from civil liability as a quasi-judicial body and the action was an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay full indemnity costs to the ratepayer and elevated costs to the city, and his motion to have his former counsel personally pay the costs was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide a costs outline.

The appellant, a municipal councillor and later mayor, appealed a decision finding he contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to influence the location of a municipal project near his commercial property.

The application judge ordered his removal from office and a two-year disqualification.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction, the finding of a pecuniary interest, the admission of expert evidence, the penalty, and the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable errors in the application judge's objective assessment of the conflict, her reliance on the expert valuation report, or her discretionary decisions on penalty and costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $18,000 to each of the responding municipalities.