Rodney V. Northey

The respondent requested a correction to a costs endorsement, noting the judge had mistakenly written the fee total instead of the all-inclusive total of fees, taxes, and disbursements.

The applicants objected, arguing the endorsement was clear and the issue should be raised on cross-appeal since an appeal had already been commenced.

The court corrected the transposition error, amending the costs award to the intended all-inclusive amount of $2,288,314.57, noting the Court of Appeal would prefer the corrected outcome over a cross-appeal about a typo.

Romandale Farms Ltd. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding an official plan amendment for the Angus Glen Block.

Romandale argued the hearing should be delayed until the completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, potential permitting under the Endangered Species Act, and ongoing judicial review litigation concerning the proposed collector road network.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the necessity for approvals under other legislation is not a basis to adjourn a Planning Act hearing, and that an official plan amendment does not constitute an authorization to proceed with an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

A party requested that the scheduling of a hearing be deferred due to alleged jurisdictional issues related to an incomplete environmental assessment and ongoing litigation.

The Tribunal found that the party must bring a formal written motion to determine the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing on the merits and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals.

Due to ongoing court proceedings and the recent circulation of updated documents, the Tribunal deferred the finalization of the Issues List and the scheduling of the hearing on the merits to a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Markham's alleged decisions to plan and approve a four-lane collector road crossing protected Greenbelt lands.

The City argued the application was premature because the environmental assessment and planning processes were ongoing and no final location for the road had been determined.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are complete.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The successful appellant, Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries, sought costs of the appeal and the underlying application from the respondents.

The respondents argued they should be shielded from costs as public interest litigants.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the respondents were public interest litigants but held this did not excuse them from all costs consequences.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the respondents' public interest status, the Court ordered the corporate respondent to pay $350,000 in total costs and the individual respondent to pay $10,000.

The Town of Oakville sought to designate Glen Abbey golf course as a cultural heritage property.

Clublink, the owner, applied under section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish and remove the golf course.

The Town argued the application should proceed under section 33, which provides different procedural protections and appeal routes.

The central issue was whether a golf course constitutes a "structure" within the meaning of section 34.

The Court of Appeal held that Glen Abbey, being a product of significant construction and engineering comprising constituent parts intended to remain permanently on the property, was a structure within section 34.

The purposive and contextual interpretation of the statute, considering its legislative history and the evolution of municipal heritage planning beyond a "building-centric" paradigm, supported this conclusion.

The applicant, Clublink, owned the Glen Abbey Golf Course in Oakville and sought to redevelop it into a residential and mixed-use community.

The Town designated Glen Abbey as a cultural heritage property and passed five related by-laws, including a Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan By-law, authorizing the preparation of a conservation plan that required Clublink to seek Town approval for alterations to the golf course.

The application judge quashed all five by-laws and the conservation plan, finding them ultra vires, passed in bad faith, and void for vagueness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, upholding the validity of the five by-laws but quashing the conservation plan resolution on the basis that it effectively compelled Clublink to continue operating the golf course as a service, contrary to section 11(8)5 of the Municipal Act.

The applicants sought declarations regarding the governance and operations of the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries (MPGC), a statutory trust established in 1826.

The court granted the applicants public interest standing and found that MPGC's directors had not been validly appointed since 1987, as they failed to comply with the mandatory election procedures in the 1849 Act.

The court declared that MPGC holds its assets as a charitable trust and that its operation of visitation centres and funeral homes exceeded its statutory objects.

The court declined to order a formal investigation under the Charities Accounting Act but appointed the seven most senior directors as trustees, subject to confirmation at a public meeting.

The applicants, owners of the Glen Abbey Golf Course, brought an application to quash five municipal by-laws enacted by the respondent Town.

The by-laws aimed to preserve the property's use as a golf course following its designation as a cultural heritage property.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the application and quashed the by-laws, finding them ultra vires the Town's authority under the Municipal Act, as they improperly required the provision of services related to recreation and culture.

The court also found the by-laws were enacted in bad faith to thwart the applicants' redevelopment plans and were void for vagueness.

The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) brought an application challenging the validity of several by-laws enacted by the Town of Oakville concerning cultural heritage properties.

The application was heard concurrently with a similar application by Clublink Corporation ULC.

The court addressed BILD's standing to bring the application, considering both private and public interest standing.

The court found that BILD lacked private interest standing as it was not directly impacted by the by-laws, and its primary identified member (Clublink's parent company) was already challenging the same by-laws.

The court also denied public interest standing, concluding that BILD's challenge was not a reasonable and effective means of bringing the matter before the court, given that the Clublink application already provided a suitable context for adversarial determination with a proper evidentiary record.

Consequently, BILD's application was dismissed.

The Canadian National Railway Company (CNR) moved to stay an application brought by the Regional Municipality of Halton and its constituent municipalities (Halton) concerning the applicability of provincial and municipal laws to CNR's proposed intermodal rail hub in Milton.

Halton's application sought declarations on constitutional division of powers issues, arguing that provincial and local laws of general application should apply to the federal undertaking.

CNR contended the application was premature and interfered with an ongoing federal environmental assessment process.

The court granted CNR's motion to stay Halton's application, finding that while the constitutional issues were not hypothetical, the federal environmental review panel was mandated to consider local concerns and impacts, and allowing the application to proceed would be an unwarranted intrusion into the federal process and an inefficient use of judicial resources.

The stay is temporary, pending the completion of the federal environmental assessment and the Minister's decision.

The Town of Oakville designated the Glen Abbey Golf Course as a heritage site under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).

Clublink, the owner, sought to demolish and redevelop the property, applying under s. 34(1) of the OHA.

The Town refused to process this application, arguing that the golf course features were not "buildings or structures" within the meaning of s. 34, and that Clublink should instead apply under s. 33, which provides for a non-binding appeal route.

The court was asked to determine the correct procedural route for Clublink's proposed changes.

The court found that the Glen Abbey Golf Course, including its engineered features such as tees, greens, sand traps, and irrigation systems, constitutes "structures" for the purposes of s. 34 of the OHA.

Consequently, Clublink has the right to make an application to the Town under s. 34(1), and the Town was ordered to process Clublink’s application.

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order setting dates for the disclosure of documents, exchange of witness statements, and the hearing of the appeal.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Tribunal held telephone conference calls to address the status of the appeals and scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Whiteside's appeal for lack of jurisdiction but granted his request for Party status, and scheduled a pre-hearing conference and a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a transportation corridor.

The applicant argued that the Terms of Reference conflicted with the Growth Plan under the Places To Grow Act, 2005, because they did not restrict the study to the existing highway route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Growth Plan did not preclude considering alternative routes and that the Minister's decision was reasonable.

The respondent sought costs of $61,000 following a successful appeal regarding the Ontario Municipal Board's jurisdiction to order a joint board.

The Divisional Court denied the costs request, finding that the respondent caused unnecessary steps and lengthened the proceeding by failing to raise the jurisdictional issue at first instance or during the initial leave to appeal application.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to order a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act (CHA) for a proposed golf course and residential development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a joint board because the potential hearings under the Ontario Water Resources Act were exempt under the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OMB had the discretion under s. 24(2) of the CHA to refuse to order a joint board and made no error in exercising that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to order a consolidated hearing under s. 25(2) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The court found that the prerequisites for leave were met, as the correctness of the OMB's decision was open to serious debate and the matter was of sufficient importance.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeals were ordered to be consolidated with an existing appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

The OMB had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to award costs after a licence application for aggregate removal and the subsequent ministerial referral were withdrawn.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the OMB correctly determined that under the Aggregate Resources Act, its jurisdiction was limited to the issues specified in the referral and it had no authority to review the pre-referral process or award costs in these circumstances.