Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Costs

  1. Hamilton v. Correia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Costs, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Joseph Hamilton seeks costs against Richard Correia arising from a hearing in which Mr. Correia appealed against a severance granted to Mr. Hamilton by the Committee of Adjustment for a property in the Town of Wasaga Beach. In a decision issued on May 28, 2013, the Board found in favour of Mr. Hamilton. The amount Mr. Hamilton is seeking is not stated directly in his Motion, but his counsel indicates in accompanying documentation that Mr. Hamilton claims is $8,241.57 in legal and planning expenses.


    Held:

    Motion for costs dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board’s rules do not provide leeway to award costs when a party’s conduct has been found to be reasonable, but resulted in “inconvenience and financial loss for other parties.” Further, an appellant is under no obligation to provide expert witnesses. Failure to present evidence can be considered to constitute frivolous or vexatious behaviour and worthy of the awarding of costs, but does not apply in this case.


    Document(s):



  2. Maile v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Costs, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Maile is seeking an award for costs under ss. 97(1) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act against the Township of Muskoka Lakes in respect to a hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Township’s Committee of Adjustment. The appeal imposed certain setbacks and rezoning, which was allowed by the Board.


    Held:

    Motion is dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board does not believe that Council was being unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or acting in bad faith in imposing Condition 7 during the hearing, in resisting the appeal, in requiring Ms. Mailer to go through a contested hearing or in allowing its Director of Planning to give evidence. The Board also finds nothing in the Township’s conduct that could be viewed as so clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or exercised in bad faith as to warrant an award for costs.


    Document(s):



  3. Menkes Lakeshore Ltd. v. Kraft Canada Inc.

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Costs, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    A motion for costs arising from a hearing of the merits that lasted for some 50 hearing days. The central issue in the hearing was whether a mixed use designation, permitting commercial and residential uses, should be placed on any or all of the lands bounded by Park Lawn Road, Lakeshore Road West, Mimico Creek, and CNR lands. The Board held in favour of permitting mixed commercial and residential uses. Kraft’s application for leave to appeal was denied, with costs. Menkes has pursued its motion for costs, but only against Kraft, not the City.


    Held:

    Motion for costs is denied


    Reasons:

    The Board finds insufficient support in the affidavit evidence for the Board to make a finding of bad faith on the part of Kraft; they disagree that Kraft had ignored the Board’s directions and orders; they do not agree that noise and odour were not proper issues; and finds that it has insufficient evidence to make an award of costs against Kraft for failure to retain experts, submit reports, call evidence to challenge Menkes experts or advance an argument in support of issues of design, density and height.


    Document(s):



  4. Township of Muskoka Lakes v. Purkis

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Costs, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    This motion by the Township is for costs following from an appeal by William John Purkis of Zoning By-law 2006-126, a housekeeping by-law arising from Comprehensive By-law 87-87. The motion was not responded to by Mr. Purkis within 15 days of the service of the documentation as required by Rule 101 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Township is seeking $1,000 from Mr. Purkis, which represents partial payment for costs incurred for the services of legal counsel.


    Held:

    Motion granted


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that, according to Rule 106 of the Board’s Rules, failure to attend a hearing without contacting the Board is cause for costs to be awarded. Further, the Board concurs with the Township’s submission that the appeal was frivolous from the outset and that no land use planning grounds were advanced by Mr. Purkis by which the appeal could possibly have been allowed.


    Document(s):