R. E. Zelinski

Following a motion by the respondent to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay, which was dismissed but resulted in a timetable being set, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the respondent's only success was in opposing an adjournment, while the applicant successfully defended the primary relief sought.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs of the motion.

The respondent, A.Q. Thunder Bay Properties Ltd., brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's Application for Judicial Review for delay under Rule 68.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant had not yet filed its application record or certificate of perfection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that under Rule 68.04(1)(a), the 30-day period to perfect the application does not begin until the record of the Ontario Municipal Board proceedings is filed, which had not yet occurred.

The court granted the respondent's alternative request for procedural directions and established a timeline for the perfection and hearing of the application.