Patricia Foran

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

The moving party sought to set aside an order of a single judge refusing leave to appeal a substantial costs award made by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The moving party argued that the costs award penalized them for exercising their right to a hearing de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge did not decline jurisdiction or apply a wrong principle in refusing leave to appeal, but rather considered the argument on its merits and rejected it.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.