Roger T. Beaman

The respondent sought costs of $61,000 following a successful appeal regarding the Ontario Municipal Board's jurisdiction to order a joint board.

The Divisional Court denied the costs request, finding that the respondent caused unnecessary steps and lengthened the proceeding by failing to raise the jurisdictional issue at first instance or during the initial leave to appeal application.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to order a consolidated hearing under s. 25(2) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The court found that the prerequisites for leave were met, as the correctness of the OMB's decision was open to serious debate and the matter was of sufficient importance.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeals were ordered to be consolidated with an existing appeal.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board denying their request to consolidate and hold a single joint hearing regarding a proposed development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

On appeal, the respondent raised a new jurisdictional argument for the first time, asserting that certain regulations exempted the potential water hearings from consolidation.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter to a new panel of the OMB to consider the jurisdictional question with the benefit of a full factual context, and adjourned the appeal sine die.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an order of the Ontario Municipal Board granting a $60,000 costs premium to the respondent.

The Board had relied on a Court of Appeal decision that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that a risk premium cannot be exacted against an unsuccessful party.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's rules focus on the conduct of a party, not the result achieved or the risk assumed by counsel.

The appeal was allowed and the costs premium was set aside.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions regarding a quarry site plan amendment and a substantial costs award.

The moving parties alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias and various evidentiary errors by the Board member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal on the merits and bias issues, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decisions.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the Board erred in law by awarding a $60,000 premium in its costs order, noting that the Board's rules focus on misconduct rather than the result achieved or risks assumed by counsel.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Inquiry Officer's report under the Expropriations Act, alleging breaches of procedural fairness including the denial of an adjournment request.

The respondent challenged the Court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction because the Inquiry Officer's report is an important step affecting the property owner's interests.

However, the Court dismissed the application, finding the Inquiry Officer provided detailed reasons for denying the adjournment and did not breach the duty of procedural fairness during the hearing.

The appeal concerned whether a municipality widening a road and installing a continuous centre median was required under s. 298(1) of the Municipal Act to provide another means of access to a commercial property whose direct left-turn access was restricted but not entirely eliminated.

The court held that s. 298(1) applies only where the effect of the by-law is to deprive the landowner of the only means of ingress and egress to the highway.

A mere limitation on access, even if commercially significant, does not trigger the statutory right to alternate access.

The respondents' remedy was confined to compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was allowed and the declaratory relief was set aside.