3 total
Motion to dismiss granted; zoning by-law amendment did not apply to appellant's property.
The City of Oshawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellant regarding a City-wide Zoning By-law Amendment that introduced regulations for social service establishments.
The City argued that the amendment did not apply to the appellant's property, which was zoned R2 (Residential), and therefore the appellant did not meet the statutory precondition to appeal under section 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act.
The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that the R2 Zone excludes the relevant uses and that the amendment's provisions do not apply to the appellant's property.
The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.
Costs of $42,047.70 awarded to the successful respondent following a commercial tenancy application.
The respondent was successful on an application involving complex commercial tenancy issues and sought partial indemnity costs of $48,846.92.
The applicants argued for a reduced amount of $27,000, relying on the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay.
The court reduced the respondent's hourly rates by approximately 15 percent but found the time expended to be reasonable.
Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondent at $42,047.70, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Application for declaration of valid lease assignment and relief from forfeiture dismissed due to lack of landlord consent.
The applicants, who operated a wellness centre as subtenants, sought a declaration that an assignment of the head lease from the tenant to them was valid and binding on the landlord.
Alternatively, they sought relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act and the Courts of Justice Act.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the assignment was invalid because the contractual precondition of obtaining the landlord's consent was never met.
Furthermore, the court held that the applicants were not entitled to relief from forfeiture because the tenant had voluntarily abandoned the head lease, meaning the landlord was not proceeding to enforce a right of re-entry or forfeiture.
