4 total
Leave to appeal denied; municipal board not required to notify easement holder of subdivision hearing.
The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving a subdivision plan, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the hearing.
The moving party held an easement over land near the proposed subdivision but was not on the municipal tax roll.
The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board followed its standard notice procedures and was not required to notify an easement holder it could not have known about.
The court also found no error in the Board Chair's refusal to review and re-open the decision.
Appeal dismissed as the Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons.
The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's careful and thorough reasons on either of the points argued.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
Municipal by-law regulating portable signs expired in its entirety under sunset provisions for licensing by-laws.
The respondents sued the City of Mississauga for damages and declaratory relief, arguing that the City's by-law regulating portable signs expired under the sunset provisions of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996.
The City argued that the regulatory portion of the by-law remained in effect despite the expiration of the licensing portion.
The motion judge declared that the by-law as a whole was a business licensing by-law and had expired.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the by-law was a comprehensive scheme for licensing businesses and regulating signs, and therefore expired in its entirety.
Charge under Fire Code properly laid despite referencing revoked Building Code due to statutory adoption powers.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of a charge under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for failing to provide a sprinkler system in accordance with the 1990 Building Code.
The lower courts dismissed the charge, finding that the revoked 1990 Building Code could not be revived by reference in the Fire Code.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 12(1)(l) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act explicitly authorizes the adoption by reference of any code or standard, including the 1990 Building Code.
The matter was remitted for trial.
