Leo F. Longo

The applicant Town sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision finding that a proposed cemetery was in the public interest under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Tribunal had bifurcated the hearing, leaving the related site plan appeal under the Planning Act to be determined separately.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's process was not complete and that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Temagami Barge Limited and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel from an order restraining their use of property for 13 uses found to contravene municipal zoning by-laws.

The court upheld the application judge’s findings on legal non-conforming use, the treatment of expert evidence, and the appropriateness of proceeding by application.

The court also found no error in the award of costs to the municipality, noting that leave to appeal costs was not sought as required.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $25,000 to the municipality.

The appellants, Temagami Barge Limited and its principal, Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel, moved for a stay of a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The injunction prohibited certain commercial activities on their property due to violations of municipal zoning by-laws.

Applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay pending appeal, the Court of Appeal found a serious issue for appeal but determined that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as their evidence was vague and harm to third parties was generally irrelevant.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay, as the public interest in enforcing municipal by-laws outweighed the appellants' unproven claims of harm.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the appeal was directed to be expedited.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami sought a permanent injunction and other orders to enforce its zoning bylaws against Temagami Barge Limited (TBL) and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel, alleging unlawful commercial uses on Crown land zoned for "Special Management Area (SMA) Zone (Crown Land)".

TBL argued its uses were lawful non-conforming or permissible expansions under the Planning Act.

The court found most of TBL's commercial uses (marina, retail fuel, commercial docking, barge rental, retail aggregate sales, sewage waste disposal) unlawful, not qualifying as lawful non-conforming uses or reasonable expansions of prior industrial uses.

The court granted a permanent injunction against these unlawful uses but denied the request for partial closure of the property and removal of sea-can containers and an office trailer, finding insufficient evidence of public nuisance or contravention for the latter.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed its motion for directions.

The moving party had argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a prior consent order regarding a zoning by-law amendment because the relevant 'bonusing regime' under the Planning Act had been repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed the motion on procedural grounds because it should have been brought as a request for review under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules and was out of time.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 25, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami brought a motion seeking leave to file an additional affidavit (Picard Affidavit) after cross-examinations were completed, pursuant to Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The affidavit contained evidence regarding the historical land use of the property, discovered during an additional search requested by the respondents.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it was fresh evidence and would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed evidence was relevant, responded to matters raised during cross-examinations, would not result in non-compensable prejudice, and the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for its late discovery.

The respondents in an application for a permanent injunction regarding zoning by-law compliance brought a motion to compel the applicant municipality to answer undertakings and refusals from a cross-examination.

The court found that all requested items had either been satisfied by the municipality or were protected by litigation privilege, specifically a planning memorandum and notes on inspection photographs prepared for counsel.

The motion was dismissed, though the court ordered a brief supplementary affidavit to confirm the timing and purpose of the photograph notes.

The Barge Respondents (Temagami Barge Limited and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel) brought a motion to transfer an application from Toronto to North Bay.

The applicant, Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami, opposed this transfer, advocating for Haileybury due to significantly shorter hearing delays.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the motion to transfer to North Bay.

Instead, the court ordered the application to be transferred to Haileybury, finding it more geographically appropriate for the community and witnesses, and crucial for securing the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the proceeding by avoiding further delay.

Costs were awarded to the Municipality of Temagami.

The applicants (Builder) brought a motion under s. 25(7) of the Building Code Act to stay an Order to Comply (OTC) issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Town of Midland, pending the outcome of a related Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) appeal initiated by the respondent homeowners.

The OTC required the removal and replacement of stucco on a newly built house.

The CBO supported the stay, while the homeowners opposed it.

The court found that the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay did not apply because the court was merely deciding not to exercise its jurisdiction until a later time.

Applying the test for a temporary stay pending another proceeding, the court found substantial overlap of issues, shared factual background, and that a stay would prevent duplication of resources.

The motion for a stay was granted, and the OTC appeal was adjourned pending the LAT appeal outcome.

A municipality sought an order requiring demolition of a waterfront structure constructed on Lake Rosseau, asserting that the respondent had built a boathouse with living accommodations in violation of zoning and planning by-laws.

The respondent argued the structure was a water aerodrome registered with Transport Canada and therefore immune from municipal regulation under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The court examined the chronology of events, the respondent’s intentions, and the actual use and design of the structure.

It concluded the aerodrome registration was an attempt to circumvent municipal zoning restrictions and that the structure functioned as a boathouse rather than an aeronautical facility.

The court held that municipal planning and zoning laws applied and ordered demolition of the structure.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that upheld interim control by-laws and zoning amendments restricting short-term accommodations in the Town of Blue Mountains.

The moving parties argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Planning Act, the Human Rights Code, and the doctrine of 'people zoning', and that it denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any question of law, concluding the by-laws regulated land use rather than personal characteristics and were a justified planning response.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that upheld the validity of the respondent municipality's interim control by-law.

The moving party argued that the municipality failed to meet the statutory requirements of section 38(1) of the Planning Act because it acted on staff advice that further planning studies were unnecessary.

The court found that the issue of compliance with section 38 gave rise to serious legal debate and granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The appellant landowner and the intervening tribunal appealed a Divisional Court decision that had set aside a review decision of the municipal tribunal concerning a ravine control by-law.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act confers broad review authority, including the power to reconsider and substitute a prior decision, and that the tribunal's internal “manifest error” guideline did not narrow the statute.

The court further held that the review panel acted within jurisdiction in applying longstanding planning policy against effectively sterilizing privately owned land without acquisition or compelling justification.

It also rejected the argument that an express finding of conformity with the official plan under s. 24 of the Planning Act was required.

The City of Barrie applied to the Ontario Municipal Board to annex parts of neighbouring townships.

During the hearing, the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs submitted a letter stating the government's policy on the projected population of Barrie.

The Board ruled it was bound by this policy and refused to allow the objectors to cross-examine the government representative who delivered the letter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board erred in denying the objectors the opportunity to cross-examine the representative, as the relevant statutes established a clear right to meet the case against them by cross-examination.