Sarah Hahn

The applicants sought to quash licensing by-laws enacted by the Township of Tiny to restrict short-term rentals (STRs), arguing the by-laws were a disguised zoning by-law and ultra vires the Municipal Act.

The Court found the by-laws were a valid exercise of municipal authority, rationally connected to legitimate objectives such as health, safety, and consumer protection, and not a disguised zoning by-law.

The application was dismissed.

The Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach sought statutory, interlocutory, and quia timet injunctions against "Persons Unknown" to prevent an unauthorized H2Oi car rally scheduled for September 1-4, 2023.

The Town presented evidence of significant public safety issues, property damage, and financial costs from previous unsanctioned rallies.

The motion was heard ex parte.

The court granted the injunctions, finding a strong prima facie case that the Town's by-laws would be violated, that irreparable harm would occur, and that the balance of convenience favored the Town.

The court also affirmed the ability to issue injunctions against unknown persons.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality seeking damages and the removal of a municipal road built on their property in 1986.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the action, arguing it was statute-barred, res judicata, and that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found that under section 65(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the mistaken construction of the road constituted a deemed expropriation.

Consequently, the plaintiffs are prohibited from bringing an action for possession or damages in the Superior Court, and their sole remedy is to seek compensation before the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The action was dismissed.

The Township of Tay sought an interlocutory injunction to stop the respondents from operating a large-scale cannabis grow operation in a residential area zoned Village Commercial (C1), which violated the Township's Zoning By-Law.

The respondents, licensed for medical cannabis production, argued the by-law was vague and that their activities were for personal medical use.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions, finding the Township had a strong prima facie case, would suffer irreparable harm (due to by-law enforcement in the public interest), and the balance of convenience favored the Township.

The injunction was granted, effective January 15, 2019, to allow relocation.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend a building permit issued by the town for the construction of a dock on a neighbouring waterfront property.

The applicant argued the proposed location differed from a previously approved site plan and would eventually house a boathouse that would obstruct his view.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the planning process, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the dock's construction, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent property owner.

Following a successful application confirming user in common rights on a subdivision plan, the applicants sought costs of $51,593.86.

The respondent landowners argued the amount was excessive for a one-day hearing.

The respondent municipality also sought costs against the respondent landowners.

The court awarded the applicants $45,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the claimed amount excessive despite the complexity of the historical real estate issues.

The municipality was awarded $2,500 in costs for its helpful submissions, though its costs were reduced because it remained adverse in interest to the applicants until the morning of the hearing.