Richard Storrey

Following the refusal of leave to appeal, the responding party sought costs of $10,746.01 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued for no costs, claiming the matter involved public importance, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs of $7,385.14.

The court found costs were warranted but not on a substantial indemnity scale.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded the responding party costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a $10,000 costs award made against it by the Ontario Municipal Board for procedural non-compliance.

The moving party argued the Board erred by allowing an oral request for costs instead of a written one as required by the former Rule 100.

The Divisional Court extended the time to seek leave but dismissed the application, noting that the rule had since been amended to permit oral submissions, rendering the issue moot and not of public importance.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.