Michael Millar

The appellant appealed an order requiring the demolition or removal of a shed built without a permit and other property cleanup orders.

The Divisional Court upheld the demolition order under the Building Code Act, noting the appellant admitted to building without a permit.

The court declined to transfer the appeal of the remaining orders under the Municipal Act to the Court of Appeal, finding the issues were largely moot as the municipality had already demolished the shed and removed derelict items.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Energy Board decision requiring it to pay a $1,287,548 penalty to Union Gas for failing to meet contractual balancing requirements, with most of the penalty to be paid by shareholders due to a finding of imprudence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal.

The Court found that the OEB had jurisdiction to impose a punitive penalty to maintain system integrity, properly grounded its decision in deterrence, and reasonably concluded the appellant's conduct was imprudent despite uncontradicted evidence.

The appellant utility appealed a Divisional Court decision affirming an Ontario Energy Board order that reclassified $22 million in FT-RAM revenues from utility earnings to gas supply cost reductions.

The appellant argued this was an unauthorized departure from their Incentive Regulation Mechanism Agreement and constituted impermissible retroactive ratemaking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the revenues were generated on a planned basis contrary to the regulatory principle inherent in the agreement, and that because the revenues were brought forward for disposition and the utility failed to disclose its planned activities, the funds were encumbered and subject to further disposition by the Board without offending the rule against retroactive ratemaking.

The appellant utility company appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that reclassified $22 million in earnings from a transportation risk alleviation mechanism as 'gas transportation costs' rather than 'utilities revenue'.

The appellant argued this constituted impermissible retroactive ratemaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board had the authority under section 36 of the Ontario Energy Board Act to ensure rates were just and reasonable, particularly given the appellant's lack of disclosure regarding the nature of the revenues.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board approving the respondent's application to construct electricity transmission lines for a wind energy project and approving the forms of land agreements offered to affected landowners.

The appellant argued the independent legal advice clauses in the agreements were misleading and the Board failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the approval of the form of agreement was a discretionary decision that did not raise a question of law or jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board's decision was reasonable and its reasons were adequate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that renewed its franchise agreement with the Town of Aylmer for a three-year term instead of the requested twenty-year term.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and jurisdiction by relying on prior orders that were subsequently set aside and by failing to properly consider the public interest and adverse impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was discretionary and fact-intensive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any extricable error of law or jurisdiction.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.

The appellant utility appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that allocated 100% of the net after-tax gains from the sale of three properties to reduce the utility's revenue requirement, thereby lowering electricity rates.

The appellant argued the OEB exceeded its jurisdiction and improperly granted ratepayers a property interest in the utility's assets.

The Divisional Court held that the OEB's decision fell squarely within its rate-setting authority and expertise.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Court found the OEB's allocation of the gains as a revenue offset was a reasonable exercise of its mandate to balance competing interests and set just and reasonable rates.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that it lacked jurisdiction to order the implementation of a low-income rate affordability program for natural gas consumers.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the broad statutory authority to fix 'just and reasonable rates' using 'any method or technique' permitted the Board to consider ability to pay.

The majority concluded that while cost of service is the starting point, the Board has the jurisdiction to implement differential pricing to protect the interests of low-income consumers.