Scott Snider

Following the dismissal of two related appeals brought by groups of developers, the successful municipal respondents sought costs.

The City of Mississauga sought partial indemnity costs of $70,379.25, while the Region of Halton and City of Burlington sought full indemnity costs of approximately $176,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the prior proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and Divisional Court, and the consolidated hearing, the court awarded $50,000 to Mississauga and $50,000 to Halton and Burlington.

Zantingh Direct Inc. brought a motion for early disclosure of expert reports, witness statements, and documents from the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board in an ongoing appeal regarding 'off-sort' or 'lightweight' hogs.

The moving party argued that the responding party's lack of timely disclosure prejudiced its ability to prepare for the hearing.

The responding party argued it was not obligated to provide reasons for policy decisions but agreed to a schedule to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the exchange of documentary evidence, expert reports, and witness statements at least 30 days prior to the continuation of the hearing, with reply materials due 7 days prior.

Developers appealed decisions of the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of 'conflict' under O. Reg. 82/98 between pre-existing subdivision agreements and municipal development charge by-laws.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied a standard of correctness to the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions.

The Court affirmed that a conflict exists only if the subdivision agreement, properly interpreted, precludes the infrastructure charges imposed by the development charge by-law.

The appeals and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, a hog assembler, appealed decisions of the respondent marketing board refusing to amend its policies regarding the marketing of 'lightweight' or 'off sort' hogs.

The appellant sought exemptions to allow it to market hogs in certain weight ranges and 'chance hogs' outside the respondent's single-desk system, arguing it needed these hogs to fill truckloads efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding weight categories and chance hogs, finding that altering the single-desk status would erode the respondent's marketing power and be contrary to the marketing plan.

The Tribunal remitted a new 5% exemption proposal back to the respondent for consideration.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant's request to retain a $0.25 per hog administration fee from service charges collected for the respondent on off-sort hogs.

The respondent applied for an official plan amendment, zoning change, and subdivision approval, providing the prescribed information but refusing to provide additional information requested by the appellant municipality.

The municipality refused to forward the appeal record to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing the 90-day period for a decision had not commenced.

The Court of Appeal held that under the Planning Act, the 90-day period begins once the prescribed information and fees are provided, regardless of whether additional requested information is supplied.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the respondent to proceed directly to the OMB.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal establishing a pricing formula for live chickens in Ontario and ordering the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend its regulations to implement the formula.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Farm Products Marketing Act to establish the pricing formula, fix the starting price, and direct the Commission to amend its regulations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant hatchery appealed decisions of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission (OBHECC) assessing fines for obstructing an inspector, failing to report bird sales, and failing to produce requested information.

The appellant also requested the Tribunal to order OBHECC to issue Hatching Egg Market Share for special dual purpose birds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding market share for lack of jurisdiction, as the appellant had not first applied to OBHECC.

After hearing evidence, the Tribunal upheld all fines, finding that the appellant knowingly failed to fulfill its obligations under the regulated marketing scheme.