Matthew Patterson

The parties brought urgent cross-motions in an intra-family dispute involving a family company and the estate of a deceased family member.

The court noted that proceedings involving the estate were subject to a mandatory stay under Rule 9.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the deceased died intestate and no estate trustee had been appointed.

The court adjourned the motions to a later date to consider the appointment of a Litigation Trustee for the estate, while noting the parties' agreement to mediate the underlying disputes in the interim.

The proposed intervenors, three regional municipalities, brought a motion for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The underlying appeal involved a private dispute between an expropriating authority and a landowner over the market value of expropriated land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate they would make a useful and distinct contribution not already offered by the appellant.

The court noted that the intervention would unnecessarily broaden and complicate the private dispute by introducing issues related to the capital planning of other municipalities.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that allowed the withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal by a neighboring developer.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal, which occurred on the eve of the hearing, breached its right to procedural fairness by preventing it from arguing for a cost-sharing condition.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, finding that the issue of procedural fairness is a question of law that should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism requiring leave under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the withdrawal of the appeal was expressly contemplated by the Planning Act and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel private parties to enter into a cost-sharing agreement.

The appellant, Oro-Medonte Property Owners’ Association, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to quash a by-law imposing water system fees and to declare the water system municipal.

The by-law was passed by the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, to fund upgrades to the Zone 1 water system.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Zone 1 system was not assumed by the municipality and that the by-law was within the municipality's statutory authority under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appeal was dismissed.