Paul M. DeMelo

The applicant developer sought a provisional building permit for a townhouse development, which the City refused, demanding an off-site parkland dedication instead of cash in lieu of land.

The applicant appealed the refusal and applied for a declaration interpreting the municipal bylaw.

The court dismissed the appeal as premature because the applicant lacked final planning approval.

However, the court granted the application for a declaration, finding that under the plain language of the bylaw, the City cannot require an off-site parkland dedication without the developer's agreement.

The applicant, an absentee landlord living in Qatar, sought to reverse clean-up costs assessed against his property by the respondent municipality after a clandestine drug lab operated by his tenants caused a fire.

The municipality relied on a by-law prohibiting the use of property for the manufacture of controlled substances.

The court held that the by-law is a strict liability public welfare provision that does not require the owner to have actual knowledge of the prohibited activity.

The court found the municipality's decision to assess costs against the applicant was reasonable and that failing to do so would result in the applicant's unjust enrichment.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants' farm property was expropriated by the respondent, and the parties settled compensation at $1.3 million, with costs to be assessed under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act.

An assessment officer awarded costs, but a Superior Court Justice reduced the amounts on appeal, finding them unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Superior Court Justice erred by conducting a rehearing and substituting her own view of what was reasonable instead of applying the proper deferential standard of review.

The assessment officer's awards were reinstated.

The appellant sought to quash a municipal by-law renaming a public square, arguing that the city council held closed meetings in violation of the Municipal Act.

The Court of Appeal found that while the council failed to pass a sufficient resolution before going into closed session and conducted an unauthorized vote, these were procedural irregularities.

Because the final decision to pass the by-law was made after lengthy debate at an open public meeting, the by-law was not tainted by illegality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board refusing to disqualify an expert witness retained by the respondents.

The applicant had initially contacted the expert and shared allegedly confidential information before the expert declined the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that there is no property in an expert witness and that the applicant failed to establish a risk of prejudice or meet the test for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.