Stanley M. Makuch

The appellant appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the current value assessment of its grocery store property.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by failing to properly determine the current value, ignoring certain comparable properties, and acting without jurisdiction when it amended its initial decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the valuation issues raised were questions of fact, not law, and that the Board had jurisdiction to correct typographical and mathematical errors in its amended decision.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the current value assessment of its independent grocery store.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by restricting its comparable properties to only the 'most similar' independent grocery stores, rather than considering all 'similar' grocery stores in the vicinity as required by the Assessment Act.

The court found there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision, as limiting comparables to near equivalency could constitute a methodological error of law rather than a mere factual finding.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant municipality discovered an 1854 by-law purporting to establish a public road along the shoreline of Georgian Bay.

It registered the by-law in 2007 and sought a declaration that the road was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondents, who own cottage properties on the purported road, successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that summary judgment was appropriate, the 1854 by-law lacked sufficient certainty to establish a road, and the unregistered by-law was void against the respondents who had no actual notice of it.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that upheld interim control by-laws and zoning amendments restricting short-term accommodations in the Town of Blue Mountains.

The moving parties argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Planning Act, the Human Rights Code, and the doctrine of 'people zoning', and that it denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any question of law, concluding the by-laws regulated land use rather than personal characteristics and were a justified planning response.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant lower-tier municipality appealed a decision finding its Mayor and Deputy Mayor had a conflict of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) preventing them from voting at the upper-tier municipal council on a land sale.

The application judge held that the lower-tier municipality was a 'body' under s. 2(a)(iii) of the MCIA, imputing its pecuniary interest to its representatives.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that interpreting 'body' to include a lower-tier municipality in this context would frustrate the legislative scheme of upper- and lower-tier municipal governance.

The representatives were not precluded from participating in the discussions and votes.

The appellants, operators of an adult entertainment parlour, challenged the validity of a 2002 regional anti-smoking by-law that prohibited smoking in bars but exempted casinos.

They argued the by-law was invalid because the underlying 1997 approvals from local municipalities were done by resolution rather than by-law, no new approvals were obtained for the 2002 by-law, and the exemption for casinos was discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that resolutions were sufficient to convey approval, the original approvals authorized the general exercise of the power to regulate smoking, and the distinction between bars and casinos was expressly authorized by the enabling statute.

The Court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal on costs, finding the motion judge erred in denying costs based on his personal disapproval of the political decision to exempt casinos.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that denied it party status in a site plan appeal.

The moving party argued it was denied natural justice and that the Board applied the wrong test for standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the site plan process does not determine the rights of neighbouring property owners, and thus there was no denial of natural justice.

The Court also held that the Board properly exercised its discretion over its own procedure in determining that the municipality could adequately protect the public interest.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board order regarding its jurisdiction to extend the boundaries of an adopted official plan amendment and to change the proposed uses.

The Divisional Court held that the Board has jurisdiction to do both as a matter of general principle, though it could exceed its jurisdiction by acting unreasonably.

However, the court quashed the appeal as premature because the Board had not yet made a decision on the specific modifications.