Court File and Parties

CITATION: South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association v. 1423 Bloor Street West Inc. et al., 2023 ONSC 6276

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-239-00JR

DATE: 20231107

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: SOUTH JUNCTION TRIANGLE GROWS NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION

Moving Party

AND:

1423 BLOOR STREET WEST INC., BLOOR AND STERLING INC., 2726255 ONTARIO INC., 2665100 ONTARIO INC., 2688627 ONTARIO INC., 2659339 ONTARIO INC., 2659340 ONTARIO INC., 2659341 ONTARIO INC., AND 2662548 ONTARIO INC. (“1423 BLOOR PARTIES”)

AND

CITY OF TORONTO

AND

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL

Responding Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAUN O’BRIEN

COUNSEL: Self-represented Moving Party

Alan B. Dryer, for 1423 Bloor Street West Inc., Kathleen Coulter for the Ontario Land Tribunal, and Aderinsola Abimbola, Chris Henderson and Timothea T. Leung for the City of Toronto

HEARD at Toronto by Videoconference: November 2, 2023

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated March 3, 2023, is dismissed. I am not satisfied that the proposed appeal meets the three-part test for granting leave.

[2] Consistent with the usual practice in this court, there shall be no reasons for this decision: Westhaver Boutique Residences Inc. v. Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3949 (Div. Ct.); County of Wellington v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 22, 2022 ONSC 1458 (Div. Ct.).

[3] Given that the motion for leave to appeal is dismissed, it is not necessary to separately address the request for an extension of time to file the motion.

Costs

[4] The responding numbered companies (collectively known as” Kingsett”) seek costs of $32,272.16. Its costs cover the motion for an extension of time, the motion for leave to appeal and the steps it took to have the judicial review filed by the moving party dismissed. Those steps resulted in a case conference before Corbett J.. Corbett J. directed that if the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, subject to the discretion of the motion judge, a Registrar’s notice should be issued pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 with respect to the application for judicial review.

[5] The moving party submits that it should be considered a public interest litigant, that it has no assets, and that, if unsuccessful, no costs should be awarded against it.

[6] I am not persuaded that the moving party is a public interest litigant in accordance with the test set out in CAMPP Windsor Essex Residents Association v. Windsor (City), 2020 ONSC 4612 (Div. Ct.), at para 164. The moving party is a neighbourhood association opposing development applications in its neighbourhood. Its members are directly impacted by the proposed development. While stating it is raising important planning issues, it also acknowledges in its factum that it is essentially arguing “not in our backyard.”

[7] That said, I accept that, as a neighbourhood association, it has little to no assets. This is a relevant factor in my assessment and will reduce the quantum of costs ordered.

[8] Overall, I find costs of $10,000 to be appropriate. Therefore, the moving party shall pay costs of $10,000 to the Kingsett responding parties. No costs are ordered for or against the City of Toronto, which did not make any submissions on the motions.

Applicant for Judicial Review: Notice pursuant to R. 2.1

[9] The Registrar shall issue a notice pursuant to r. 2.1 on the basis that the application for judicial review does not appear to raise any issues not encompassed by the proposed appeal, leave for which was refused.

O’Brien J.

Date: 20231107