Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Ontario cases.


To view sample cases that we have been involved in, browse by location by clicking on the geographical area you are interested in, or browse by subject area by clicking on an icon below.

Our Work
Location
Subject
Court
  1. City of Peterborough Downtown BIA Mason Homes Ltd., Mutak Holdings Ltd. and AON inc. v. Searun Estates Inc.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Downtown BIA/CIP, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Mason Homes Ltd., Mutak Holdings ltd., City of Peterborough Downtown BIA and others have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24), 34(19) of the Planning Act and section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, from a decision to the City of Peterborough to approve of Proposed Amendment No. 104 to the Official Plan for the City. The applications would permit the redevelopment of a site outside of the Commercial Business District (CBD) for use as a large Chapters/Starbucks.


    Held:

    Appeals dismissed, Decision subsequently amended


    Reasons:

    While it may be desirable for Chapters to locate in the CBD, they are not prohibited from locating elsewhere. The applications are consistent with the policy framework.
    The Board having considered the written submissions of the parties on the requests of AON Inc. and Mason Homes Limited to amend the Board’s decision of August 20, 1999, Decision/Order No. 1558, and especially the letter of October 4, 1999 from the City of Peterborough, hereby amends its decision and order by deleting “4.4.5.1” from the first line on page 16 and substituting “4.4.9.1.”


    Document(s):



  2. Paper Fibres Inc., Meridian Cooperative Homes Inc., James Drake and others v. City of Hamilton and Wesley Urban Ministries

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    City Council for the City of Hamilton passed Zoning By-law Amendment 97-147 to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 6593, as amended by Zoning By-laws 92-197 and 93-117. This amendment was to permit on the first and second floor of the existing building a “Drop-in Centre” for the homeless, the destitute, and the ex-psychiatric patients needing temporary shelter and social services. Appeals against the Zoning By-law were launched various appellants.


    Held:

    Appeals allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The appeals of the Appellants are allowed, in part, to permit the Drop-in Centre, but to change the Zoning By-law Amendments in keeping with the limitations expressed in this Decision, including an application for the amendment to the Site Plan and approval given. It would also mean redrafting of the Zoning By-law Amendment definition of Drop-in Centre to limit the Drop-in Centre use to the particular location in the residential complex at the subject property. That would also require locational and size limitations being set out in the amendment.


    Document(s):



  3. East Beach Community Assn. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Whether the appeals disclose any apparent planning grounds on which appeals can be given or refused.


    Held:

    Grants motion to dispense with the hearing


    Reasons:

    It is not good enough to simply raise apprehension. It would not constitute apparent planning ground by saying that further expert study is required with the hope that once a hearing is convened, more real issues can come forth. The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case. This does not allow the Board to make a hasty conclusion as to the merit of an issue. Nor does it mean that every appellant should draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with iron-clad reason for fear of being struck down. What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated, whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.


    Document(s):



  4. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 12 v. Oshawa Group Ltd.

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    No categories


    Court:

    Assessment Review Board, Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    At issue is the correct business assessment to be assessed against the Oshawa Group Ltd. in Etobicoke. The parties agree that the Oshawa premises should be assessed at 50% pursuant to subsection 7(1)(e) of the Assessment Act. The Regional Assessment Commissioner (RAC) contends that Oshawa should be assessed at 75% in accordance with subsection 7(1)(c) of the Assessment Act. Oshawa contends that they should be assessed at 30% in accordance with the omnibus provisions of subsection 7(1)(k) of the Act.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    It is clear from the evidence presented to the Board that Oshawa does intervene in the business of its divisions. It operates their payroll and pension plan, it approves their annual budget, no major investment can be made by divisions without the approval of Oshawa, and more telling, the manager of each division is appointed and can be fired by Oshawa. In the Board’s opinion, given the facts stated above, it cannot be said that the divisions are operationally completely separate from Oshawa. Further, the Board finds that the Oshawa premises are for “the purpose of” and “in connection with” the business of its divisions and therefore allows the appeal by the Regional Assessment Commissioner.


    Document(s):



  5. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 10 v. Philips

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Residential Development


    Court:

    Assessment Review Board, Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 10 has appealed the supplementary taxation years and Edward and Ann Philips have appealed the 1993 taxation year to the Ontario Municipal Board under section 47(1) of the Assessment Act from decisions of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property in the City of North York.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board was informed that a settlement had been reached and the minutes of settlement are entered. The Board allows the appeal and fixes the assessment for taxation year commencing on September 27, 1990, 1991, and 1993.


    Document(s):