S. S. Worsfold

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion on consent to cancel and replace a previous order with values provided in minutes of settlement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding it advisable to cancel the previous decision to finally resolve the proceedings for the 2009-2016 taxation years and avoid a multiplicity of further proceedings.

Residential subdivision developers commenced an action alleging that a municipality overcharged development charges between 2004 and 2008 and sought damages.

The municipality brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a preliminary question of law concerning the legality of development charges imposed under the Development Charges Act, 1997, a municipal by-law, and subdivision agreements.

The court held the motion was not brought promptly within the meaning of Rule 21.02, as it was filed years after the pleadings and after the trial record had been set down.

In any event, the court found the legality of the municipality’s “top up” charge based on indexed development charges was not plain and obvious and required determination at trial after full evidence and argument.

The unsuccessful appellant in an OMB appeal sought to be excused from paying costs, arguing he was acting as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the litigation did not involve an issue of public significance extending beyond the immediate parties.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court found the respondents' requested amounts excessive and awarded $10,000 to the primary respondent and $5,000 to each of the other two respondents.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that dismissed his appeal concerning a proposed development.

The OMB had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the moving party failed to present apparent land use planning grounds.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in law by equating 'land use planning grounds' with 'evidence from a land use planner' and by finding he had not tendered a land use planning opinion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's assessment of the evidence was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The Court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision, as the evidence provided by the moving party was insufficient to demonstrate legitimate land use planning concerns.