5 total
Appeal of zoning by-law amendment dismissed; holding an easement does not confer standing as registered owner.
The Applicants brought a motion challenging the Appellants' standing to appeal a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an event venue on the Applicants' lands.
The Appellants argued they had standing under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Planning Act because they held a registered easement over the rezoned lands for a water line.
The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the easement did not confer ownership of the servient tenement.
As the Appellants were not registered owners of the lands to which the by-law applied, they lacked standing.
The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.
The court ordered the unsuccessful applicant to pay $18,500 in partial indemnity costs following unreasonable litigation conduct.
This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's application and the granting of the counter-application.
The court assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the complexity of the proceeding, the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and a Rule 49 settlement offer.
The applicant's unreasonable conduct in including an unnecessary party and taking an untenable position regarding the property value influenced the costs award.
The court rejected the applicant's proposed costs as arbitrary and unreasonable.
Tribunal directs written motion to determine if easement holders have standing to appeal zoning by-law.
The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment that would permit an event venue on the subject lands.
At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant challenged the validity of the appeal, arguing the appellants are not registered owners but only hold easements over the lands.
The Tribunal deferred requests for participant status and directed that a written motion be held to determine whether an easement interest satisfies the appellant requirements under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Planning Act.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion to adjourn the trial regarding equitable ownership.
The court dismissed the Defendants’ motion to adjourn the pretrial and trial, finding that the issues before the Divisional Court and those to be resolved at trial were not the same.
The trial would resolve the equitable ownership issue, and proceeding as scheduled would be fair and just.
The court also awarded costs to the Plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the motion unnecessary and not required to be decided before trial.
New home warranty appeal dismissed; paved driveway was not included in the purchase agreement.
The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for an unpaved driveway.
The appellants argued that a paved driveway was included in their Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and that receiving a gravel driveway constituted a deficiency or unauthorized substitution.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the APS as a whole and found that the mention of driveway paving in the completion clause did not create an obligation to provide a paved driveway.
The Tribunal concluded there was no deficiency under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and confirmed Tarion's denial of the claim.
