Tony E. Fleming

The applicants sought to prevent the Township of Wollaston from selling a parcel of land, arguing it was subject to a charitable trust established by a will and, alternatively, that the sale was ultra vires as not properly authorized by by-law.

The court found that no charitable trust was created as certainty of intention was not met, meaning the Township held the land in fee simple.

However, the court agreed that the Township's decision to sell the property was ultra vires because it was not authorized by a specific by-law, rendering the agreement of purchase and sale null and void.

The court noted the Township could rectify this by passing a proper by-law.

Due to mixed success, no costs were awarded.

The appellant challenged the legality of a by-law passed by the City of Kingston imposing impost fees for water and wastewater infrastructure under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant argued that such fees could only be imposed under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA), or alternatively, if under the Municipal Act, 2001, then subject to the procedural protections of the DCA, including a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which the City could not provide.

The appellant also argued the by-law was illegal under s. 394(1)(e) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as water and wastewater are natural resources.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that municipalities have dual legislative regimes for imposing development fees, and the Municipal Act, 2001, provides a valid basis for the impost fees.

The court clarified that s. 15(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, does not require importing DCA procedural protections, as the two statutes confer different powers and have distinct review mechanisms.

Furthermore, the court found that s. 394(1)(e) does not prohibit fees for infrastructure that transports water and wastewater for ratepayers' benefit.

The appellant, Steve Maynard, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his application to quash five municipal by-laws.

The application judge had found that the challenge to the by-laws, based on their alleged inconsistency with a provincial policy statement and non-conformity with an official plan, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), now the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that it was plain and obvious that the LPAT (or its successor) had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicants, developers in the City of Kingston, challenged the validity of the City's Impost By-law, which imposed fees for the capital costs of water and sewer infrastructure.

The applicants argued that the City was required to impose such fees under the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the Impost By-law conflicted with that Act, was ultra vires the Municipal Act, 2001, and was discriminatory.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative framework allowed the City to enact the Impost By-law under the Municipal Act, 2001, that there was no conflict with the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the by-law was neither ultra vires nor discriminatory.

The applicants and respondent sought a last-minute consent adjournment of a full-day application hearing scheduled for February 21, 2020, citing ongoing settlement discussions that required City Council approval.

The court expressed frustration with the late notice, noting it resulted in wasted judicial and courtroom resources.

The court adjourned the matter to be spoken to at a future motions court, recommending that any new hearing date be made peremptory to both sides.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law and legal non-conforming use, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant, a public interest litigant, had partial success but the main issue was decided in favour of the respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $40,000 to the respondent Picton Terminals.

The court declined to award costs to the respondent County, finding that its failure to recognize the trans-shipment use in its 2006 zoning by-law generated the uncertainty that led to the application, and recognizing the applicant as a public interest litigant.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, Mayor of Belleville, breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council debate and voting on a highway improvement project in which he had a pecuniary interest.

The court found that the respondent did breach the Act by voting on the project, which involved the acquisition of property owned by a company in which he held shares.

However, the court applied the saving provision under section 10(2) of the Act, finding that the contravention was committed through an honest error in judgment, and therefore declined to remove the respondent from office.