COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
NANCY SCOTT ET AL. (Applicants (Appellants with the exception of Jean Innis)) - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF WELLINGTON ET AL. (Respondents (Respondents in Appeal)
BEFORE: CARTHY, DOHERTY and MOLDAVER JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Peter Pickfield and Stanley Makuch For the appellants John Valeriote and Mark Rodenburg For the respondent the Corporation of the County of Wellington Cavan Acheson and Ian Macmillan For the respondent the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington Roderick MacDougall For the respondent Woolwich Agricultural Society and Activa Holdings Ltd.
HEARD: June 19 and 20, 2001
On appeal from the order of Justice James H. Clarke dated October 24, 2000.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1We would dismiss the appeal essentially for the reasons given by Clarke J.
2Manifestly, as Clarke J. found, the meeting of March 29, 2000 complied with the spirit and purpose of the relevant Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, provisions. To the extent, if any, that it may not have complied strictly with the letter of those provisions, the deficiencies, in our view, were of such a minor nature that they can properly be characterized as de minimis and hence, of no consequence.
3The appellants' further submission that even if the Township met its obligations under the Planning Act, the County did not, cannot be considered for the first time in this court. Before Clarke J., it was accepted that the meeting was properly held by the County and the Township. The new argument which the appellants' seek to advance raises factual issues which, had they been raised before Clarke J. would have been the subject of additional evidence from the County. Absent that evidentiary base, it would be inappropriate for this court to consider the argument.
4In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Signed:
"J.J. Carthy J.A." "D.H. Doherty J.A." "M.J. Moldaver J.A."