Murray John Klippenstein

The moving party sought leave to appeal a $10,000 costs award made against it by the Ontario Municipal Board for procedural non-compliance.

The moving party argued the Board erred by allowing an oral request for costs instead of a written one as required by the former Rule 100.

The Divisional Court extended the time to seek leave but dismissed the application, noting that the rule had since been amended to permit oral submissions, rendering the issue moot and not of public importance.

The appellants appealed a decision upholding a municipal by-law that restricted the height of their natural garden planted on city property.

The application judge found that any infringement of the appellants' freedom of conscience, religion, or expression was justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit for public safety and visibility on roadways.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge's analysis, concluding that the by-law's limitation on vegetation was tied to safety hazards and was not overly vague or unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed the Chief Returning Officer's rejection of the respondent's nomination for a student position on the Governing Council.

The lower court found a conflict between the Election Guidelines, which required a candidate to be a member of their constituency throughout the election period, and the University of Toronto Act, which stated every student is eligible for election.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no conflict.

The Court held that 'eligible' does not mean 'entitled,' and the guideline was a valid procedural rule establishing a connection with a constituency.

The appellant province appealed a judgment concerning the designation of First Nations bands as delivery agents under the Ontario Works Act.

The Court of Appeal resolved the dispute narrowly by declaring that, in light of the 1965 Welfare Agreement, the minister's powers under s. 38 had to be exercised with the consent of the band.

The court set aside the judgment below, established a process by which bands could indicate non-consent and obtain immediate revocation of designation, and left existing designations temporarily in place pending that choice.

The court expressly declined to determine the broader constitutional issues addressed below.