Raymond Andrew Biggart

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 City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision of the Vice-Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, which refused to order a rehearing of a decision granting approval for a mixed-use development on lands designated as 'Employment Areas'.

The City argued the Board erred in law by allowing the conversion without a municipal comprehensive review, contrary to the Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation—that the lands were not within 'Employment Districts' and thus not subject to the conversion protection—was reasonable and consistent with the City's own by-laws.

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 Town of Oakville appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that stayed a zoning by-law against the respondents, who were growing crops on contaminated former refinery lands zoned industrial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby denying natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court held as a matter of law that 'farming' is a land use, not a 'normal farm practice', and the Farming and Food Production Protection Act cannot be used to introduce a new agricultural use on land where farming is prohibited by a valid zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding that a co-defendant held monies in trust for the respondent.

The motion judge had concluded that 75% of the sale price of products remained the property of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the agreement merely created a contractual obligation to pay 75% of the invoiced amount, with the co-defendant assuming the risk of non-payment.

The lack of a requirement to segregate funds further negated the existence of a trust.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment against the appellant was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a supplementary endorsement amending a previous endorsement.

The appeal by the appellant Thomson was allowed, the summary judgment against him was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis and the costs of the motion below at $40,000.