Suzanne E. Hunt

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion for directions to compel the Integrity Commissioner to file the entire record of proceedings, including confidential evidence, for her pending judicial review application.

The applicant argued that the Commissioner's report waived the statutory duty of secrecy and that procedural fairness required full disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the Commissioner's statutory duty to preserve secrecy under s. 223.5 of the Municipal Act prevails and is not overridden by the general principles of open court proceedings or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The parties settled the issue of costs following a previous endorsement.

The respondent municipality was ordered to pay the applicant fixed costs in the amount of $20,313.73.

The applicant, who held a registered easement over a property used as a common area by cottagers, sought a declaration to void a municipal tax sale of the property.

The City had proceeded with the sale after the registered owners failed to pay taxes for years.

The applicant argued the City's treasurer failed to exercise his discretion to stop the sale, which would prejudice the cottagers' use of the land.

The court found the treasurer failed to exercise his broad discretion to ensure fairness, rendering the process unreasonable.

The tax sale was declared void, but the court declined to order the City to provide notice of future tax sales to easement holders, as the Municipal Act does not require it.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The action, related to a 2006 property purchase, was dismissed in 2011 after the appellants failed to meet a court-ordered timetable.

The motion judge found that a 14-month unexplained delay in bringing a second motion to set aside the dismissal was fatal, and that the defendants suffered actual prejudice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Reid factors and balancing of competing principles.

The respondents to the appeal brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a May 2, 2012 order for delay and lack of merit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, noting that the appeal was perfected prior to being dismissed for delay, and that motions to dismiss for lack of merit are generally dealt with at the hearing of the appeal.

The court also noted the appellant may have had an unconsidered motion to vary the order for appointment of a litigation guardian.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the appellant.