M. Melling

The applicants brought a motion to compel an expert witness, retained by the respondent SORE, to answer questions refused during cross-examination on his affidavit.

The underlying application sought to quash municipal instruments authorizing Notices of Intention to Designate the applicants' property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The refused questions related to statements the expert made alleging the applicants engaged in 'demolition by neglect'.

The court granted the motion, finding the questions had a semblance of relevance to the issues in the application and the credibility of the expert's evidence, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The applicant argued it should not pay costs as a public interest litigant.

The court found the applicant failed to establish it was a public interest litigant, as the issues were predominantly local rather than of broad public interest.

Due to divided success on the issues, the court reduced the costs awarded to the respondent municipality.

The court declined to award separate costs to the added corporate respondent, finding its interests were adequately represented by the municipality.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the municipality.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to issue a building permit for a waste processing facility.

The applicant argued the facility was not a permitted 'Dry Industry' use and lacked required municipal service connections.

The Superior Court of Justice found the applicant had standing and upheld the CBO's reasonable determination that the facility was a permitted use.

However, the court modified the building permit to mandate that the facility be fully connected to municipal water and sewer services prior to occupancy, as required by the zoning by-law.