P. DeMelo

The applicant sought declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against a neighbouring winery and the Town, alleging the winery hosted outdoor events in violation of the agricultural zoning by-law and its site-specific plan.

The winery consented to the declarations and injunctions.

The applicant proceeded against the Town, seeking mandamus to compel by-law enforcement and a statutory injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the Town from facilitating the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application against the Town, finding that the by-law did not impose a duty of enforcement necessary for mandamus, and there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness by the Town to warrant an injunction against it.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality sought a permanent injunction against protesters occupying a residential development site and blocking public roads.

The court found the leader of the protesters in contempt for refusing to obey interlocutory injunctions and struck his pleadings, denying him further participation.

The court granted the permanent injunctions, finding the developer had good title, the protesters' self-help remedies and blockades were unlawful, and there was a serious risk of ongoing harm and violence.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction against protestors who occupied its lands and halted construction.

The self-proclaimed leader of the protestors, who was added as a defendant, openly defied previous interlocutory injunctions and stated his intention to continue doing so.

The court held that it was an abuse of process for a party to participate in proceedings while in flagrant contempt of court orders.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prohibit the defendant from further participation until he and his followers vacate the lands and comply with the court's orders.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality brought motions for interlocutory injunctions to remove protesters who had occupied a residential development site and blockaded public roads.

The protesters, asserting an indigenous land claim outside of the court process, did not participate in the proceedings.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the injunctions, finding serious issues to be tried, irreparable harm to the developer and the community, and that the balance of convenience favoured upholding the rule of law.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of a decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner dismissing its appeal of a conservation authority levy apportioned by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Hamilton argued that the levy should only be calculated using the assessed value of lands within the conservation authority's jurisdiction, rather than the entire municipality's assessment base.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's interpretation of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 670, finding that the entire assessment base of the municipality is to be used in the calculation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving party, Men's Fire, sought to be added as a party and to vary an interlocutory injunction that prevented interference with the plaintiff's archaeological assessments on its property.

The court added Men's Fire as a party on consent but dismissed the motion to vary the injunction.

The court found no evidence of an active land claim against the property, no failure by the plaintiff to comply with legislation, and no duty on the private landowner or the municipality to consult with the moving party under the circumstances.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that set aside official plan amendments intended to permit estate residential development in rural areas.

The Board found the amendments did not conform to the provincial Growth Plan, which directs new multiple lots to settlement areas.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation that the policy limits residential development in rural areas to three or fewer units.