Suzanne Hunt

The plaintiff, a land developer, sued the City of Belleville for breach of a 1999 Development Agreement and unjust enrichment.

The agreement stipulated that owners of "benefiting properties" would share the cost of sewer and water infrastructure constructed by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose when the City installed its own sewer and water lines on Cloverleaf Drive, connecting to the plaintiff's infrastructure, but did not require homeowners connecting to these services to enter into cost-sharing agreements with the plaintiff.

The court interpreted clause 22 of the Development Agreement, considering the factual matrix and the Public Utilities Act, concluding that the clause applied only to land developers of undeveloped adjoining properties, not individual homeowners.

The action was dismissed.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants' initial application was converted to an action, which they subsequently did not pursue.

The respondents sought costs for the motion.

The court determined that the applicants were not public interest litigants, as their claims were personal and pecuniary.

Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay partial costs to the various respondents, reflecting the respondents' ultimate success in concluding the litigation, albeit not on the exact grounds initially pleaded.

The respondents brought a motion to strike the applicants' application.

The court did not strike the application but granted the applicants leave to convert it to an action.

The parties subsequently made written submissions on the costs of the motion.

The applicants argued they should not be subject to costs as they were public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicants were pursuing a personal pecuniary interest related to their commercial property.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, fixing the amounts at $15,000 plus disbursements for the federal respondents, and $2,500 each for the two municipal respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their action, which arose from a real estate transaction.

The action was dismissed by the Registrar after the plaintiffs failed to set the matter down for trial in accordance with a court-ordered timetable.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal and found that the plaintiffs' delay was intentional, as they had prioritized an alternative resolution through the Ministry of the Environment over the litigation.

Given the significant delay in bringing the motion and the prejudice to the defendants, the court refused to set aside the dismissal.