Woodward Bruce McKaig

The plaintiff developer and the municipality sought a permanent injunction against protesters occupying a residential development site and blocking public roads.

The court found the leader of the protesters in contempt for refusing to obey interlocutory injunctions and struck his pleadings, denying him further participation.

The court granted the permanent injunctions, finding the developer had good title, the protesters' self-help remedies and blockades were unlawful, and there was a serious risk of ongoing harm and violence.

The City of Hamilton sought judicial review of a decision by the Mining and Lands Commissioner dismissing its appeal of a conservation authority levy apportioned by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

Hamilton argued that the levy should only be calculated using the assessed value of lands within the conservation authority's jurisdiction, rather than the entire municipality's assessment base.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's interpretation of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulation 670, finding that the entire assessment base of the municipality is to be used in the calculation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board granting vacancy property tax rebates to the respondent steel company for periods during which the respondent had locked out its employees.

The appellant argued that maintaining the plant in a production-ready state during a labour dispute constituted 'use' of the facility, disqualifying it from the rebate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of the Municipal Act and Regulation 325/01 to be reasonable.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the reason for the vacancy was irrelevant and that the maintenance activities fell within the permitted exemptions for upkeep.

The moving party, Men's Fire, sought to be added as a party and to vary an interlocutory injunction that prevented interference with the plaintiff's archaeological assessments on its property.

The court added Men's Fire as a party on consent but dismissed the motion to vary the injunction.

The court found no evidence of an active land claim against the property, no failure by the plaintiff to comply with legislation, and no duty on the private landowner or the municipality to consult with the moving party under the circumstances.

In an application seeking an interlocutory and permanent injunction relating to alleged municipal by-law and building code violations, the respondents brought a motion to add the Province of Ontario as a party.

The respondents argued that issues concerning land ownership, asserted Indigenous treaty rights, duty to consult, and the applicability of municipal and provincial laws required Ontario’s participation.

The province opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary to resolve the injunction request.

The court held that the respondents had raised issues directly affecting the province and that Ontario, as the landowner, had a significant interest in the matter.

The motion to add Ontario as a party was granted.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to stay an order of a motion judge pending appeal.

The motion judge had refused to dissolve an injunction prohibiting protestors from occupying land, even though the land had been purchased by the Province of Ontario, until criminal contempt proceedings were disposed of.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the paragraph continuing the injunction, finding a serious issue as to its validity, irreparable harm to the public interest and land claim negotiations, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court declined to stay the paragraph referring the contempt matter to the Attorney General for carriage.