Robert A. Robinson

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that granted development charge credits to a group of developers for both work performed and cash contributions made under a Core Infrastructure Agreement.

The Divisional Court held that while the LPAT had jurisdiction to review the City's refusal to grant credits, it erred in law by treating cash contributions as 'work performed' under section 38(1) of the Development Charges Act.

The Court concluded that cash contributions are not eligible for development charge credits.

The Court also found that a complaint filed by some developers was not out of time.

The moving party, the City of Toronto, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving party's factum.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $10,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that ordered the return of $397,941 in disputed development charges to the respondent developer.

The developer had paid the development charges for two condominium towers based on the municipality's calculations before the building permits were issued, but the municipality later demanded additional charges for the second tower due to a phased rate increase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of the Development Charges Bylaw was reasonable and not open to substantial doubt, and that the case did not raise a point of law of sufficient general importance to warrant the court's attention.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and noting that his conclusions were amply supported by the evidence, particularly the expert reports.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey retirement home in a Highway Commercial zone.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Board failed to properly apply the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, misinterpreted the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and failed to justify how significant departures from density limits and lot coverage requirements could be considered minor.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that allowed a developer's application for minor variances to permit a retirement residence.

The City argued the application should have proceeded as a rezoning and Official Plan amendment, as the proposal changed the permitted use and significantly exceeded lot coverage and density limits.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's legal interpretation of the minor variance test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and its application of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.