Mark Robert Flowers

This decision addresses the impact of a Court of Appeal ruling that declared certain contingent property interests in a 1981 development agreement void for perpetuities.

The Superior Court was remitted to determine which other provisions of the 1981 Agreement and related contracts were affected and rendered inoperative.

The court found that the voided sections fundamentally altered the original bargain, which included a path for the evolution and potential redevelopment of the golf course lands, not a perpetual obligation to operate a golf course.

Consequently, several provisions related to the golf course's perpetual operation, sale, right of first refusal, and redevelopment path were declared inoperative.

The 40% open space principle was largely maintained but its application to golf course redevelopment was clarified.

This appeal concerned the application of the rule against perpetuities to land development agreements.

ClubLink Corporation ULC appealed a lower court decision that upheld perpetual obligations to operate a golf course or convey the land to the City of Ottawa.

The Court of Appeal found that the contractual provisions requiring conveyance of the golf course lands to the City, or reconveyance back to the original owner, created contingent interests in land.

As these interests did not vest within the 21-year perpetuity period, they are void and unenforceable.

The court clarified that the expectation of a contingency materializing is not a factor in determining if an interest in land is created.

The appeal was allowed, and the relevant sections of the 1981 Agreement were declared void.

This decision addresses the costs arising from two applications brought by the Town of Oakville that were struck out by the court.

Clublink, the successful party, sought $137,903.70 in partial indemnity costs, while the Town argued for no costs or, alternatively, $30,000.

The court rejected the Town's arguments for denying costs, noting that the Town's counter-applications created an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

While acknowledging the extensive litigation context and the involvement of multiple senior counsel, the court found Clublink's requested costs excessive for a relatively straightforward motion to strike.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $65,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant, Clublink, owned the Glen Abbey Golf Course in Oakville and sought to redevelop it into a residential and mixed-use community.

The Town designated Glen Abbey as a cultural heritage property and passed five related by-laws, including a Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan By-law, authorizing the preparation of a conservation plan that required Clublink to seek Town approval for alterations to the golf course.

The application judge quashed all five by-laws and the conservation plan, finding them ultra vires, passed in bad faith, and void for vagueness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, upholding the validity of the five by-laws but quashing the conservation plan resolution on the basis that it effectively compelled Clublink to continue operating the golf course as a service, contrary to section 11(8)5 of the Municipal Act.

The Town of Oakville sought to designate Glen Abbey golf course as a cultural heritage property.

Clublink, the owner, applied under section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish and remove the golf course.

The Town argued the application should proceed under section 33, which provides different procedural protections and appeal routes.

The central issue was whether a golf course constitutes a "structure" within the meaning of section 34.

The Court of Appeal held that Glen Abbey, being a product of significant construction and engineering comprising constituent parts intended to remain permanently on the property, was a structure within section 34.

The purposive and contextual interpretation of the statute, considering its legislative history and the evolution of municipal heritage planning beyond a "building-centric" paradigm, supported this conclusion.

The Town of Oakville designated the Glen Abbey Golf Course as a heritage site under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).

Clublink, the owner, sought to demolish and redevelop the property, applying under s. 34(1) of the OHA.

The Town refused to process this application, arguing that the golf course features were not "buildings or structures" within the meaning of s. 34, and that Clublink should instead apply under s. 33, which provides for a non-binding appeal route.

The court was asked to determine the correct procedural route for Clublink's proposed changes.

The court found that the Glen Abbey Golf Course, including its engineered features such as tees, greens, sand traps, and irrigation systems, constitutes "structures" for the purposes of s. 34 of the OHA.

Consequently, Clublink has the right to make an application to the Town under s. 34(1), and the Town was ordered to process Clublink’s application.

Clublink sought leave to admit a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations concluded, arguing it supported their claim of bad faith in Oakville's by-law enactment.

Oakville moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it was late-filed and irrelevant.

The court applied the four-part test for admitting late-filed evidence under Rule 39.02(2), finding the evidence either irrelevant or available prior to cross-examinations.

Clublink's motion for leave was dismissed, and Oakville's motion to strike was granted, rendering the supplementary affidavit inadmissible.

The applicant, James Kritz, sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order to rescind a City of Guelph building inspector's order.

The City of Guelph argued for no costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found Kritz entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the City's submission that success on two out of three arguments negated costs, affirming that costs follow the event of overall success.

The court fixed costs at $37,482.01, noting the City's own partial indemnity bill of costs was $29,367.33 and that Kritz's expert fees were reasonable and appropriate.

The request for substantial indemnity was denied as there was no finding of improper conduct by the City, the issue having been withdrawn by the applicant.

Gemterra Developments Corporation sought a refund of $408,400 from the City of Toronto, alleging overpayment of park levies.

The central issue was the interpretation of "development site" under the City's Park Levy By-law, specifically whether Gemterra's two-phase residential project on a 1.3-hectare parcel constituted one or two development sites.

The levy rate was 10% for sites less than one hectare and 15% for sites between one and five hectares.

Gemterra argued that each phase, for which separate building permits were issued, should be treated as a distinct site, qualifying for the lower 10% rate.

The City contended it was a single development site.

The court dismissed Gemterra's application, finding that "development site" is a fact-based determination, and in this case, the two phases comprised a single development site, irrespective of phased construction or separate building permits.

The respondent sought costs following dismissal of the applicant municipality’s application on the basis that the Ontario Municipal Board was the more appropriate forum.

The municipality argued that no costs should be awarded because the court did not determine the merits of the dispute and the matter might proceed before the Board.

The court rejected that submission, holding that the municipality chose to bring the proceeding in the Superior Court and the application was dismissed.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent, though reduced due to excessive fees and some duplication.

The court fixed costs and disbursements payable within 60 days.

The applicant municipality sought a declaration that a developer had no right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board from council’s refusal to approve an official plan amendment redesignating employment lands to mixed use areas.

The court considered whether it should determine the jurisdictional issue or defer to the tribunal.

The court held that although it possessed concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal had broader expertise in interpreting official plans and planning legislation.

The court therefore declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application, finding the tribunal to be the more appropriate forum to determine the appeal rights under the Planning Act.