Patrick John Harrington

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that dismissed his appeal concerning a proposed development.

The OMB had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the moving party failed to present apparent land use planning grounds.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in law by equating 'land use planning grounds' with 'evidence from a land use planner' and by finding he had not tendered a land use planning opinion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's assessment of the evidence was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The Court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision, as the evidence provided by the moving party was insufficient to demonstrate legitimate land use planning concerns.

The applicants challenged a City of Toronto by-law imposing an annual tax on third-party signs, arguing it was an ultra vires indirect tax, discriminatory, and that existing signs were grandfathered under the City of Toronto Act.

The application judge upheld the by-law but found existing signs were grandfathered and granted a sealing order over the applicants' financial information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeals, finding the tax was direct and not discriminatory.

The Court allowed the City's cross-appeal, holding that the grandfathering provision applies only to regulatory by-laws, not taxing by-laws, and that the sealing order was unjustified under the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering a 10% rent abatement for 53 tenants due to alleged failure to maintain the building and interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board member's reasons were conclusory, lacked transparency, and failed to analyze the statutory requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a re-hearing solely on the issue of the landlord's obligation to repair.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision finding that Home Depot's application to develop a major retail store in an Employment Area did not constitute a 'conversion' under the Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the Board's interpretation of planning documents is reasonableness.

The Court found the Board's conclusion—that major retail use was already contemplated in the Official Plan and thus not a conversion—was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent sought a building permit to raise and renovate a cottage that had been submerged and uninhabitable for 14 years.

The municipality refused, arguing the legal nonconforming use had been lost.

The application judge ordered the permit issued, finding the successive owners' intention to repair preserved the use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, holding that intention alone, without reasonable steps to resume the use, is insufficient to preserve a legal nonconforming use over such an extensive period.

However, the Court declared that the respondent retained a legal nonconforming use of the land for docking boats, though no new structures could be erected.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had determined that the respondent's proposed large retail store development in a designated Employment Area did not constitute a 'conversion' under the Growth Plan, and thus did not require a municipal comprehensive review.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the application was not premature given the fundamental nature of the question, there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation of the Official Plan and Growth Plan, and the issue was of sufficient general importance to land use planning in Ontario.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of two Landlord and Tenant Board orders (an Arrears Order and a Maintenance Order) and to lift the stay of eviction.

The landlord argued the appeal did not raise a question of law and was out of time.

The court found that while the grounds of appeal primarily related to findings of fact, the allegation that the Board failed to consider relevant evidence could amount to an error of law, so the appeal of the Maintenance Order was not plainly devoid of merit.

However, as the grounds of appeal did not challenge the amount of rent arrears, the court lifted the stay in respect of the Arrears Order and ordered the tenant to pay the arrears and ongoing rent into court or to the landlord, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding a refused tree removal permit.

The right of appeal under s. 136(1) of the Municipal Act had been repealed before the permit was refused.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the moving party had no vested right of appeal upon merely filing the application, as the right only arises upon an actual refusal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed its application for an above-guideline rent increase related to lobby renovations.

The Adjudicator had dismissed the claim due to missing schedules in the contract and concerns about a non-arms-length relationship between the landlord's agent and the contractor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator erred in law by relying on an irrelevant corporate relationship and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider the landlord's requests to file the missing documents.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator for rehearing.