Court File and Parties
CITATION: Richmond Hill (Town) v. Elginbay Corporation, 2015 ONSC 4981
COURT FILE NO.: 59/15
DATE: 20150807
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
Moving Party
– and –
ELGINBAY CORPORATION, ZAMANI HOMES (RICHMOND HILL) LTD., HAULOVER INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MONTANARO ESTATES LIMITED, WILLIAM and YVONNE WORDEN, ROBERT SALNA and SALNA HOLDINGS INC.
Respondents
COUNSEL:
Barnett H. Kussner and Kim Mullin, for the Moving Party
Ira T. Kagan, David Winer and Caterina Facciolo, for the Responding Parties, Elginbay Corporation and Zamani Homes
Jeffrey Streisfield, for the Responding Parties, Haulover Investments Ltd., Montanaro Estates, Yvonne Worden and Robert Salna Holdings Inc.
HEARD at Toronto: July 16, 2015
Endorsement
H. SAchs J.:
[1] The Moving Party seeks leave to admit the affidavit of Ana Bassios, sworn March 19, 2015 (the “Affidavit”), on its pending motion for leave to appeal. The Affidavit addresses the public importance of the issues raised in the proposed appeal. It does so by making the following points:
(a) The decision under appeal “represents the first and only instance in which the Board – and, in turn, the Courts – have dealt with the proper legal interpretation of section 42 of the Act, in terms of the Board’s jurisdiction on an appeal relating to parkland dedication policies and, in particular, its jurisdiction to impose a cap on a specific municipality which is less than the alternative requirement authorized by section 42(3).” (Affidavit, para. 10). This is a point that counsel can make without the necessity of introducing the Affidavit.
(b) Other municipalities are watching the decision with considerable interest and the legal departments of three municipalities have recommended that these municipalities seek leave to intervene on the motion for leave to appeal. Subsequent to the swearing of the Affidavit, four municipalities (including the three mentioned in the Affidavit) sought leave to intervene, which I granted. Thus, this portion of the Affidavit will add nothing to the record.
(c) On March 5, 2015, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing introduced a bill that proposes amendments to the section of the Planning Act that is the subject of the proposed appeal. Counsel can refer to this fact without the necessity of introducing the Affidavit.
[2] All other aspects of the Affidavit either speak to the qualifications of the affiant or express an opinion, which is not admissible on a motion for leave to appeal.
[3] For these reasons, the motion to admit the Affidavit is denied. As per the agreement of counsel, the Moving Party is to pay the Responding Parties, Elginbay and Zamani, their costs fixed in the amount of $4000.00 and the Responding Parties represented by Mr. Striesfield their costs fixed in the amount of $1000.00.
H. SACHS J.
Released: 20150807
CITATION: Richmond Hill (Town) v. Elginbay Corporation, 2015 ONSC 4981
COURT FILE NO.: 59/15
DATE: 20150807
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
Moving Party
– and –
ELGINBAY CORPORATION, ZAMANI HOMES (RICHMOND HILL) LTD., HAULOVER INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MONTANARO ESTATES LIMITED, WILLIAM and YVONNE WORDEN, ROBERT SALNA and SALNA HOLDINGS INC.
Respondents
JUDGMENT RE MOTION TO LEAVE TO INTRODUCE FRESH EVIDENCE
H. SACHS J.
Released: 20150807