3 total
Leave to appeal LPAT decision on development charges denied; balance of probabilities standard correctly applied.
The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that ordered the application of a discounted industrial rate for development charges on a new building constructed by the respondent developer.
The municipality argued the LPAT erred by applying a balance of probabilities standard rather than requiring certainty of future industrial use, and sought to introduce fresh evidence of non-industrial tenants.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's application of the civil standard of proof to predict future use, rejecting the fresh evidence as irrelevant to the time of building permit issuance, and concluding the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance.
Court reduces hourly rate and disbursements in fixing partial indemnity costs.
The court determined the appropriate quantum of costs following a motion where the successful party sought partial indemnity costs.
The responding party challenged the hourly rate claimed, time billed for preparation of an affidavit, and charges related to cross-examinations that did not proceed.
The court accepted the challenges regarding the hourly rate and certain cross‑examination-related charges but rejected the challenge to the affidavit preparation time, finding it necessary for the motion.
Costs were recalculated based on a reduced hourly rate and adjusted disbursements.
The court ordered payment of revised costs inclusive of disbursements.
Court orders discovery motion heard before municipality’s summary judgment motion.
The parties jointly sought directions regarding the order in which two motions should be heard in a tender dispute action.
The plaintiff sought production of tender documents and related discovery concerning the defendant municipality’s historical tender practices, while the defendant brought a summary judgment motion arguing the claim could be resolved as a legal issue based on explicit tender terms.
The court held that the summary judgment motion was not framed solely as a question of law and that determining the legal issue could require a factual matrix concerning past tender practices.
Requiring the plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment motion without disclosure could be prejudicial.
The court directed that the plaintiff’s discovery motion proceed first.
