Susan L. Ungar

During an appeal, an added party sought to raise a Charter challenge to provisions of the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the constitutional question, noting that the evidentiary record was woefully inadequate.

Furthermore, the order adding the party explicitly stated that it was not to unduly widen the scope of the appeal.

The court held that a Charter application could be brought at any time on a proper record, but it would not be heard in the current appeal nor referred back to the motions judge.

The appellants challenged the municipal tax assessments of several bank tower properties in downtown Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board initially ruled that the phrase 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act required the properties to be valued as if they were vacant.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that the standard of review was correctness and that the Board erred in law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's interpretation, confirming that income-producing properties should be assessed using market rents and a normal vacancy rate, rather than assuming they are entirely vacant.

The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of returning the matter to the same panel of the Board rather than a new one.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that corrected an error in the assessment roll regarding a severed property.

The property had been inadvertently omitted from the roll, and the Board used its discretion under s. 44(1) of the Assessment Act to rectify the error, triggering s. 33 to assess the omitted property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of law and confirming that the limitation period for complaints under s. 40(2) does not apply to properties erroneously left off the assessment roll.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying his request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to notes made by an independent investigator appointed by the City of Toronto.

The investigator had been retained to review the procurement process for the Union Station redevelopment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the investigator was an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the City.

Applying the correctness standard of review, the court concluded that the requested records were not in the custody or under the control of the City, and therefore were not subject to disclosure under the Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the authority of the City of Toronto to enact a by-law regulating the use of pesticides within the city under s. 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The motion judge upheld the by-law.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the broad and purposive approach to interpreting municipal powers applies to s. 130.

The court found that the by-law was enacted for purposes related to the health, safety, and well-being of inhabitants, and did not conflict with federal or provincial pesticide legislation.

The appeal was dismissed.