William Curtis Aaron Hunter

The appellant was successful in an appeal determining that the respondents had no authority under the Building Code Act to issue orders that caused a care facility to be immediately evacuated.

In this costs endorsement, the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of $40,204.57, while the respondents suggested $5,000 to $7,500.

The court found no bad faith but noted the respondents ignored the appellant's rights to reasonable notice and an opportunity to remediate when other legal options were available.

The court exercised its discretion to award the appellant costs in an elevated amount of $20,000 all inclusive.

The appellant operated a residential care facility.

Following a failed unannounced fire drill, the Chief Building Official issued orders under s. 15.9 of the Building Code Act declaring the building unsafe and immediately prohibiting its use and occupancy, forcing the evacuation of 20 residents.

The appellant appealed, arguing the official had no authority under s. 15.9 to order immediate evacuation without providing time for remediation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders, finding that s. 15.9 requires a property owner be given a reasonable time to take remedial steps before an occupancy prohibition can be issued, distinguishing it from the emergency powers in s. 15.10.

The moving party, a community group, abandoned its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding an Official Plan Amendment.

The moving party brought a motion to be relieved from the costs consequences of abandoning the appeal under Rule 37.09, arguing it was a public interest litigant.

The Divisional Court applied the five-step test for public interest costs immunity and found that while the group may have had genuine motives, the underlying litigation was ill-advised, unreasonable, and adversely impacted the private respondents who were forced to participate.

The motion for relief from costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision suspending his racing licenses for ten years and imposing a $20,000 fine for administering a performance-enhancing drug (EPO) to a horse.

The applicant argued his confession to investigators was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the statement was admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and statutory compulsion, and that the common law confession rule and section 7 of the Charter did not apply to these administrative proceedings.

The court also upheld the penalty as reasonable given the need for general deterrence in the horse racing industry.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision dismissing its appeal of two zoning by-laws.

Prior to the hearing, the City of Ottawa passed a new Comprehensive Zoning By-law that repealed and replaced the impugned by-laws, subjecting the lands to the same uses.

The applicant did not appeal the new by-law.

The Divisional Court found the application for judicial review was moot because the original by-laws had been superseded.

Applying the Borowski factors, the court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, noting there were no collateral consequences, no issues of broad public importance, and limited application to other lands.

The City of Ottawa appealed a decision dismissing its appeal of the Chief Building Official's issuance of a building permit for a proposed intensive hog farm operation.

The Intervenor cross-appealed the application judge's finding that it did not have a legal non-conforming use to operate the hog farm.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The Court held that the environmental statutes (OWRA, Fisheries Act, EPA) were not 'other applicable law' under s. 8(2) of the Building Code Act because they lacked a real and logical nexus to the construction and demolition of buildings.

Furthermore, the Court upheld the application judge's finding that the proposed hog farm was a change in use from the pre-existing dairy farm, meaning the Intervenor did not have a legal non-conforming use right under the Planning Act.

In this family property appeal arising from a fact-driven trial, the appellant challenged the trial judge’s findings, particularly concerning ownership of a triplex, and alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the factual findings were amply supported by the record and disclosed no palpable or overriding error.

It also rejected the bias allegation and dismissed the contingent cross-appeal, including the claim for pre-judgment interest.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed, and appeal costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.