ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
Applicant
- and -
JAMES W. MCCUTCHEON, Q.C., STEPHEN & CHRISTINE SADLER, HARMEET & TAMMY SINGH, SUSAN & OWEN JONES AND WESTHILL REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
Roger T. Beaman, for the Applicant
Rodney V. Northey and Myriah L. Graves, for the Respondents, James W. McCutcheon, Q.C., Stephen and Christine Sadler, Harmeet and Tammy Singh and Susan and Owen Jones
John M. Buhlman, for the Respondent, Westhill Redevelopment Company Limited
HEARD at Toronto: November 12, 2009
DAMBROT J.: (Orally)
1In Court File #155/08 an appeal was taken with leave of the Court from a decision of the OMB dated March 26, 2008, denying a request to consolidate a single joint hearing under the Consolidated Hearings Act.
2Upon the hearing of the appeal, Westhill raised the question for the first time of whether the OMB had jurisdiction to make the order sought. The panel concluded that it would be beneficial for the OMB to initially consider the question of jurisdiction. As a result, the panel remitted the matter to the OMB to consider the issue "before it is considered by this Court". The panel then adjourned the appeal sine die so that once the OMB had rendered its decision the Court could consider together the jurisdictional issue and the outstanding issues on the appeal.
3The OMB has now determined that it did not have jurisdiction to make the order sought, and two applications for leave to appeal from that decision are before me in Files #461/09 and #467/09.
4Given the order of the panel in File #155/08, I am not entirely certain that leave to appeal is necessary. It is arguable that the decision of the OMB is a part of its original decision in relation to which leave has already been granted. If leave is required then it seems to me that the issues that need to be determined to grant leave have already been determined in the original leave order and in the interim decision of the panel.
5In any event, if a separate determination is required, I am satisfied that the prerequisites for leave are met. The correctness of the decision is open to serious debate and the matter is of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Court.
6Accordingly, I grant leave to appeal in each file from the September 16, 2009 decision of the OMB concluding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to order a consolidated hearing under s.25(2) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.
7I further order that these appeals be consolidated with the appeal in File #155/08 with the residents McCutcheon, Sadler, Singh and Jones and the Town of Aurora as Appellants, Westhill Redevelopment Company Limited as Respondent, and Earthroots Coalition as Intervenor.
8I further order that the appellants be at liberty to file a single supplementary compendium and supplementary factums by December 4, 2009 and that the respondent and intervenor be at liberty to file supplementary compendiums and supplementary factums by December 18, 2009, 2009.
9The appeal will be heard on January 4 and 5, 2010.
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 12, 2009
Date of Release: November 18, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 461/09 and 467/09
DATE: 20091112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
Applicant
- and -
JAMES W. MCCUTCHEON, Q.C., STEPHEN & CHRISTINE SADLER, HARMEET & TAMMY SINGH, SUSAN & OWEN JONES AND WESTHILL REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 12, 2009
Date of Release: November 18, 2009