Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 06, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000595
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Ken Craine
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the rezoning of subject lands from Residential (R) and Transitional (T) to site-specific Residential (R-XX)
Reference Number: 03.1121
Property Address: 255 Lake Drive North
Municipality/UT: Georgina/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000595
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000595
OLT Case Name: Craine v. Georgina (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Ken Craine
Request for: Request for an Order Awarding Costs
Costs sought against: Town of Georgina and Richard Phillips
Heard: November 28, 2025 in Writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Ken Craine ("Appellant" / Moving Party) | Alex Lusty, Alexandra Egi (student-at-law) |
| Town of Georgina ("Municipality" / Responding Party) | Kacie Layton |
| Richard Phillips (Responding Party) | Alexander J. Suriano |
DECISION DELIVERED BY K. R. ANDREWS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is a motion for costs brought by the Appellant against the Municipality and Richard Phillips (collectively, the “Responding Parties”). The Appellant is seeking his costs of the Appeal payable by the Responding Parties jointly in the amount of $162,107.73, representing 75% of his legal expenses, plus 75% of his costs associated with the present motion.
2Richard Phillips is also seeking 75% of his costs of this motion, calling the Appellant’s conduct in bringing the motion unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious for attempting to punish him for participating in the proceedings.
3The Appellant claims that the Responding Parties’ conduct was unreasonable and vexatious to a degree that warrants costs payable by the Responding Parties under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practices and Procedure on a substantial indemnity basis. More particularly, the Appellant cites the following actions of the Responding Parties as constituting unreasonable and vexatious conduct:
- No reasons for the Municipality Council’s decision to refuse the initial application, despite staff’s recommendation to approve it;
- The Responding Parties’ alleged fixation on irrelevant Additional Residential Unit issues;
- The Responding Parties’ alleged lack of cooperation regarding the Appellant’s settlement efforts; and
- The Responding Parties’ alleged unreasonable recusal request.
Finding
4The Tribunal declines to practice its discretion to award costs to the Appellant, finding that none of the above cited conduct rises to the extraordinary threshold that is required to warrant costs of any kind, never mind costs at a substantial indemnity rate.
5Regarding the Appellant’s first ground, the Tribunal finds that a municipality does not need to provide reasons to initially refuse an application, especially in light of the fact that an appeal may be initiated without the Municipality making a decision at all. What matters is the conduct of a Municipality throughout the appeal proceedings.
6Regarding the second ground, the Appellant is essentially complaining that the Responding Parties pursued a case that had no reasonable prospect of success. With this being the case, the Appellant’s argument paradoxically defeats itself, because the prudent and reasonable remedy for such a claim is not a costs award after a full hearing, it is a motion to dismiss a proceeding without a hearing under s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.
7Regarding the third ground, no Party before the Tribunal is obliged to partake in settlement efforts nor agree to a settlement proposal, and the Tribunal furthermore finds no principled basis in the present case to sanction a party for failing to engage.
8Regarding the fourth ground, the Tribunal finds no basis to sanction a Party for bringing a recusal request, and that it would introduce an undesirable chilling effect if it decided to do so.
9Costs are also denied to Richard Phillips for failing to establish the same high threshold required for an award for costs, with the Tribunal finding that bringing a costs motion is neither proof of punitive motives nor unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious conduct.
ORDER
10THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the motion for costs is denied and no costs are awarded to or from any Party.
“K. R. Andrews”
K. R. Andrews MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.