Know Your City Inc. v. Brantford (City of), 2020 ONSC 5113

CITATION: Know Your City Inc. v. Brantford (City of), 2020 ONSC 5113

COURT FILE NO.:

DATE: 20200826

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO

RE: Know Your City Inc. v. Brantford (City of)

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Eric Gillespie, Kathleen Coulter and Veronica Martisus, for the Applicant Geoff B. Daley, for the Respondent

DATE: August 26, 2020

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement reflects a case management teleconference held on August 26, 2020.

[2] The applicant seeks judicial review of a resolution of the City Council of the respondent to sell Arrowdale Municipal Golf Course. The resolution was passed on December 19, 2019.

[3] The applicant seeks an order staying City Council’s decision pending determination of the application for judicial review.

[4] The City authorized sale of the property this week. Closing of the sale is not expected until after the end of the golf season – not earlier than mid- to late-November, though no firm closing date has been established as yet.

[5] The court can accommodate a hearing date well before closing of the sale – as early as September if the situation required it. The court does not wish to put parties to undue expense to expedite the case more than is necessary, nor does it wish to put undue pressure on court resources to expedite the hearing more than is necessary.

[6] During the case management conference the court discussed a schedule with the parties that would see a return date for argument in mid-December. Counsel for the City would require instructions to be able to undertake not to close the sale pending a decision with a hearing in December, and it may be that the City asks that the schedule be expedited from that discussed in the case management conference. Counsel for the applicant has expressed a willingness to be flexible in scheduling to accommodate a reasonable return date. When counsel discuss refining their schedule, they should keep in mind that the court ordinarily requires three weeks of preparation time – time to obtain a bench memo from judicial law clerks and time for panel judges to review materials and prepare for the hearing. This period can be shortened somewhat, when necessary, but the parties should bear in mind when they settle a schedule that they cannot eliminate judicial preparation time.

[7] Order to go that the applicants deliver their materials by September 11, 2020.

[8] Order to go that counsel try to agree upon a schedule for exchange of materials and terms of an undertaking from the City in lieu of a stay order. Counsel should provide their agreed schedule to the court as soon as possible so that a return date may be fixed. If counsel cannot agree then counsel should schedule a further case management teleconference with an administrative judge of the Divisional Court (I am not seized).

[9] There are two other issues that need to be addressed. First, I understand that there is a purchaser that has agreed to buy the property. That purchaser may have an interest in this application and may be entitled to be heard on the application. The parties should give notice of the application to the purchaser and obtain the purchaser’s position on scheduling and on whether the purchaser will seek to participate in the application. If there is a contested issue on standing of the purchaser to participate, that issue should be brought back before an administrative judge at the earliest opportunity.

[10] Second, counsel for the City noted that the applicant appears to be a sole-purpose corporation with no business other than bringing this application. In these circumstances the City may move for security for costs. I would not delay the schedule for the main application for such a motion, but I would expedite the return of the motion. That said, the jurisprudence on this issue is well developed and the court has encouraged counsel to try to agree on a resolution of this issue, given the amounts that are usually in issue on such a motion. If this issue cannot be agreed, counsel for the City should seek to schedule a motion for security for costs at the earliest opportunity.

[11] There was discussion about the standard approach to delivery of documents and virtual hearings in Divisional Court. A further endorsement on this issue will be made in due course. The parties have been advised that materials should all be pdf format, and that factums should also be in Word format. Factums should hyperlink to authorities online, and the parties should not file briefs of authorities except for authorities not available online. Parties may file factum compendiums, and will have an opportunity to file compendiums for oral argument. Counsel for the applicant will be responsible for establishing a file sharing platform and providing the court with a link and password for application materials, in due course. Further directions will be provided when the court fixes the return date for the hearing.

[12] The hearing itself will be conducted by Zoom videoconference, with a YouTube feed so that the hearing may be viewed by members of the public. Neither counsel nor the court will gown for the hearing.

[13] Parties are required to file one paper copy of any document filed for the hearing with the court, once the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted, and to pay any applicable court fees.

[14] The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: August 26, 2020