3 total
Judicial review of municipal land sale dismissed; court declined to consider merits due to mootness and delay.
The applicants sought judicial review to quash a municipal by-law authorizing the sale of a surplus strip of land to an adjacent property owner, and moved to review a single judge's decision denying leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation.
The Divisional Court declined to consider the merits of the judicial review application, finding the sale was a private transaction of limited public character, the applicants had delayed in pursuing their interest, and the transaction had already closed with a bona fide purchaser for value.
The court also dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation, as the applicants could not establish a triable interest in the land.
Interim injunction to stay new municipal mobile licensing by-law dismissed for failing RJR-MacDonald test.
The applicant, a property owner leasing space to food trucks, sought an interim injunction to stay the enforcement of the City of Brampton's new Mobile Licensing By-law pending a judicial review application.
The new by-law removed a previous exemption that allowed food trucks to operate in the downtown area with the local BIA's consent, instead permitting them anywhere downtown provided they are 50 metres from a fixed food premise.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.
The court found no serious issue to be tried as municipal by-laws cannot be challenged for unreasonableness and the City owed no duty of procedural fairness when acting legislatively.
The applicant also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in enforcing the validly enacted by-law.
The court struck a claim against a corporate employee for failing to plead personal liability, but granted leave to amend.
The court considered a Rule 21 motion by Shell Canada Products and Tosh Skalosky to strike the claim against Skalosky personally.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead material facts supporting personal liability against Skalosky, as required by law.
The claim against Skalosky was struck, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their claim if they could plead sufficient facts.
Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.