Roderick MacDougall

The appellant appealed a decision finding no de facto expropriation effected by an open space by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no de facto expropriation.

The Court declined to consider whether the respondent had the power to require dedication of the Woodlot as a condition to site plan approval, as the issue was not raised in the pleadings or below.

The Court also found no basis in the pleadings for an allegation of malfeasance of public office.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board refusing to disqualify an expert witness retained by the respondents.

The applicant had initially contacted the expert and shared allegedly confidential information before the expert declined the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that there is no property in an expert witness and that the applicant failed to establish a risk of prejudice or meet the test for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application regarding a municipal meeting held on March 29, 2000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that the meeting complied with the spirit and purpose of the Planning Act.

Any minor deficiencies were deemed de minimis.

The court declined to hear a new argument regarding the County's obligations under the Planning Act because it raised factual issues not explored below.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.