The appellant appealed a decision finding no de facto expropriation effected by an open space by-law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no de facto expropriation.
The Court declined to consider whether the respondent had the power to require dedication of the Woodlot as a condition to site plan approval, as the issue was not raised in the pleadings or below.
The Court also found no basis in the pleadings for an allegation of malfeasance of public office.
