Terrence H. Hill

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The applicant moved to quash an interim control by-law and its extending by-law enacted by the respondent municipality, alleging illegality and bad faith.

The applicant also claimed damages for misfeasance in public office and misrepresentation.

The court found that the emergency meeting where the by-law was enacted met procedural and statutory requirements, including being open to the public.

The court held that the municipality's actions, including extending the by-law due to delays in adopting the Official Plan, were justified and did not demonstrate bad faith.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a private citizen, brought an application alleging that the respondent Mayor violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to disclose a pecuniary interest during several municipal council meetings.

The court found that all but one of the alleged violations were statute-barred by the six-year limitation period.

Regarding the remaining allegation, the court held that the respondent did not have a direct, indirect, or deemed pecuniary interest in the matter before the council, as the business involved a not-for-profit corporation and was strictly informational.

The application was dismissed.

Following dismissal of an application seeking issuance of a building permit for a lot created through a scheme found to constitute a “fraud upon the Planning Act,” the successful municipal respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant resisted both the scale and quantum of costs.

The court held that while the applicant’s conduct constituted a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Planning Act, it did not amount to criminal fraud warranting full indemnity costs.

Considering the complexity of the planning and real property issues, the long procedural history, and the conduct of the parties, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent municipality was awarded $40,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought an order compelling the municipality to issue a building permit for a parcel created through a series of intra-family conveyances designed to circumvent the Planning Act.

The court examined whether the parcel constituted a valid lot and whether the municipality could refuse the permit under the Building Code Act on the basis of contravention of other applicable law.

The court held that the initial conveyances forming the root of title were fraudulent and constituted a deceit upon the Planning Act because the purported vendors were never owners of the land.

As a result, the deeds were invalid and could not create a valid chain of title or be cured by the 40‑year rule, Planning Act statements, or subsequent conversion to land titles.

The court concluded that the building permit application was the “fruit from the poisoned tree” and refused to grant relief.