Raymond Andrew Biggart

The defendants, having successfully obtained a dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on limitation grounds, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the issues were not complex and that allegations of fraud were not adjudicated.

The court considered the complexity of the original claim, the significant amount claimed, the plaintiffs' pursuit of a statute-barred action despite early notice, and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors, the court found that the plaintiffs' conduct warranted an award of costs higher than partial indemnity.

The appellants sought to develop land pursuant to an amended development agreement with the Town of Ajax.

The agreement contained repurchase terms that could be invoked if the developer failed to take reasonable steps to proceed with construction by a specified deadline, provided it was not awaiting comments or confirmation of approval on any application from the Town.

The Town terminated the agreement and exercised its repurchase rights, claiming the developer's revised site plan application was incomplete and the construction deadline had passed.

The trial judge found in favour of the Town.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in failing to apply the Planning Act's definition of a complete site plan and in conflating completeness with readiness for approval.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the site plan application was incomplete as a matter of contract interpretation because the developer had not submitted all requested materials and was not awaiting Town approval but rather the Town was awaiting responses from the developer.

The plaintiffs, Central Park Ajax 1 Developments Phase 1 Inc. and LeMine Real Estate Consulting Inc., brought a claim for $300 million in damages and declaratory relief against The Corporation of the Town of Ajax and Rob Ford, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and unlawful interference.

The core dispute revolved around the Town's right to repurchase development lands due to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to commence construction by a contractual deadline.

The court was asked to determine two key issues: (1) whether LeMine was awaiting approval for a site plan application from the Town on or prior to July 17, 2017, which would invalidate the repurchase notice, and (2) if not, whether the Town had the right to repurchase the lands due to LeMine's failure to start construction by July 16, 2017.

The court found that LeMine had not submitted a complete site plan application sufficient for council consideration and was therefore not "awaiting confirmation of approval." Furthermore, the court interpreted the development agreement, considering both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, to conclude that LeMine was contractually obliged to commence construction by July 15, 2017, and failed to do so.

Consequently, the Town's repurchase notice was deemed valid, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on these issues.

The respondent sought costs following dismissal of the applicant municipality’s application on the basis that the Ontario Municipal Board was the more appropriate forum.

The municipality argued that no costs should be awarded because the court did not determine the merits of the dispute and the matter might proceed before the Board.

The court rejected that submission, holding that the municipality chose to bring the proceeding in the Superior Court and the application was dismissed.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent, though reduced due to excessive fees and some duplication.

The court fixed costs and disbursements payable within 60 days.

The applicant municipality sought a declaration that a developer had no right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board from council’s refusal to approve an official plan amendment redesignating employment lands to mixed use areas.

The court considered whether it should determine the jurisdictional issue or defer to the tribunal.

The court held that although it possessed concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal had broader expertise in interpreting official plans and planning legislation.

The court therefore declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application, finding the tribunal to be the more appropriate forum to determine the appeal rights under the Planning Act.