6 total
Procedural order issued scheduling a hearing for a heritage designation dispute.
The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding the City of London's notice of intention to designate the property at 4402 Colonel Talbot Road under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Board issued a procedural order scheduling the hearing for January 30 to February 1, 2017, and set deadlines for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and documentary evidence.
Tribunal declines to dismiss human rights application at summary hearing stage.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour after allegedly being denied service by counter staff at a courthouse administered by the respondent City.
The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The adjudicator found that, taking the applicant's allegations as capable of proof, it could not be concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and ordered the respondents to file a Response.
Tribunal approves settlement modifying water quality monitoring conditions for a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
The City of London appealed a condition in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring annual water quality monitoring of the Thames River using the BioMAP method.
The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the condition, making the monitoring time-limited to five years and requiring sampling every other year.
The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeal.
No jurisdiction to compel homeowner access for private testing on a Building Code Act appeal.
In a Building Code Act appeal from an unsafe building order concerning an allegedly structurally deficient residential foundation, the appellant builder sought interim relief compelling access to the homeowners' property for its engineers to take concrete samples.
The court held that, on a section 25 appeal, its remedial jurisdiction is confined to powers the inspector or chief building official could exercise under the statute.
Interpreting sections 15.9 and 18 of the Building Code Act, the court found those provisions authorize inspections and sampling by inspectors and their agents, not compelled access for private parties advancing their own interests.
The requested access order, adjournment, and stay were denied.
No costs were awarded given the novelty of the jurisdictional issue.
Unsuccessful injunction applicant ordered to pay costs; public interest claim rejected.
Following dismissal of a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the respondent municipality sought costs against the unsuccessful applicant.
The applicant argued she should be treated as a public interest litigant and shielded from adverse costs due to limited financial means and alleged broader public importance of the litigation.
The court held that public interest status does not exempt litigants from ordinary cost rules and found the case did not meet the recognized criteria for public interest litigation.
Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded partial indemnity costs but reduced the claimed amount due to concerns that the municipality’s bill included costs related to other steps in the proceeding.
Costs were fixed at $4,700 payable forthwith.
Interlocutory injunction denied; applicant failed irreparable harm and balance of convenience requirements.
A municipal resident brought a motion under s.273(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 seeking an interlocutory order restraining the city from continuing stormwater management construction associated with the abandonment of a municipal drain.
The applicant argued that the by-law abandoning the drain was invalid because the city failed to follow public consultation procedures allegedly required by its Official Plan after an environmental impact study was prepared.
The court held that the traditional three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald applies to relief sought under s.273(4).
Although the applicant raised a serious issue to be tried, she failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the municipality due to substantial financial and contractual consequences of halting ongoing construction.
The motion for interlocutory injunctive relief was dismissed.
