Residential subdivision developers commenced an action alleging that a municipality overcharged development charges between 2004 and 2008 and sought damages.
The municipality brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a preliminary question of law concerning the legality of development charges imposed under the Development Charges Act, 1997, a municipal by-law, and subdivision agreements.
The court held the motion was not brought promptly within the meaning of Rule 21.02, as it was filed years after the pleadings and after the trial record had been set down.
In any event, the court found the legality of the municipality’s “top up” charge based on indexed development charges was not plain and obvious and required determination at trial after full evidence and argument.
