ADMNS Kelvingrove Investment Corporation v. Toronto (City)

ADMNS Kelvingrove Investment Corporation v. Toronto (City)

The appeal was dismissed because the application judge reasonably found, on the evidentiary record of communications from the owner's agent, that the owner agreed to extend the 90‑day decision period under s.34(2); that factual finding was entitled to deference and negated any claim of deemed consent under s.34(4).

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 ONCA 275
Parties
Applicant (appellant): ADMNS Kelvingrove Investment Corporation; Respondent (respondent): The Corporation of the City of Toronto
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (application Judge Judgment Dated January 20, 2009)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application judge's dismissal of the declaration upheld.
Legal Topics
Demolition Permit, Deemed Consent, Statutory Interpretation, Extension of Time, Costs
Source Language
english
Heritage Law Administrative Law Municipal Law Demolition Permit Deemed Consent Statutory Interpretation Extension of Time Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADMNS Kelvingrove Investment Corporation

Applicant (appellant)

The Corporation of the City of Toronto

Respondent (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (application Judge Judgment Dated January 20, 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether City Council dealt with the demolition permit application within the 90‑day period prescribed by s.34(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act
  2. 2 Whether the owner and Council agreed to extend the 90‑day period under the proviso in s.34(2)
  3. 3 Whether the failure to decide within the statutory period gave rise to deemed consent under s.34(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the application judge reasonably found, on the evidentiary record of communications from the owner's agent, that the owner agreed to extend the 90‑day decision period under s.34(2); that factual finding was entitled to deference and negated any claim of deemed consent under s.34(4).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application judge's dismissal of the declaration upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent fixed at $13,000 including costs and disbursements.