Court File and Parties

CITATION: HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corp. v. Kingston (City), 2020 ONSC 7048

COURT FILE NO.: DV-20-003 (Kingston)

LPAT CASE NO.: PL190305

DATE: 20201117

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corporation and HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation, Moving Parties/Appellants

AND:

The Corporation of the City of Kingston, Responding Party/Respondent

BEFORE: Mew J.

COUNSEL: Raivo Uukkivi and Christie Gibson, for the Moving Parties

Tony Fleming and Lisa Scheulderman, for the Responding Party

HEARD: 27 October 2020, at Kingston (by videoconference)

Endorsement

(Motion for leave to Appeal pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 1)

[1] HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corporation and HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation (“HarbourEdge”), move for leave to appeal the decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal made on 22 July 2020 (the “Decision”).

[2] The Decision followed a direction by the Tribunal to the parties to prepare and file an Issues List in advance of a case management conference.

[3] The City of Kingston objected to the inclusion of 8 of the 15 issues set out in a draft Issues List prepared by HarbourEdge. At the case management conference, the Tribunal requested oral submissions on whether those issues should be struck from the Issues List. HarbourEdge objected to proceeding in the absence of a formal motion with evidence.

[4] The objection of HarbourEdge notwithstanding, the Tribunal subsequently rendered the Decision, striking 8 of the 15 issues from the Issues List.

[5] HarbourEdge asserts that they were denied procedural fairness and natural justice and that there is good reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Decision, which, they say, finally disposed of HarbourEdge’s right to have the issues which were struck out adjudicated.

[6] The City argues that the proposed appeal is premature as the Decision was interlocutory in nature and that in any event, HarbourEdge was afforded natural justice and the Decision was correct.

[7] As a general practice, this court no longer gives reasons on motions for leave to appeal: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949.

[8] In the present case, I would not grant leave to appeal. However, because my principal reason for doing so is that I accept the prematurity arguments put forward by the City (relying on the decision of Niagara-On-The-Lake v. Tweed Farms Inc., 2020 ONSC 3664), it is also important to record that leave to appeal is denied without prejudice to HarbourEdge raising the same or similar issues at an appropriate time in the future.

Disposition

[9] The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.

[10] Costs to the responding party fixed in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

Mew J.

Date: 17 November 2020