Scott v. Wellington (City)
The appeal is dismissed because the March 29, 2000 meeting complied with the spirit and purpose of the Planning Act and any procedural shortcomings were de minimis; additionally, the appellants cannot raise new factual arguments on appeal without the evidentiary foundation that should have been placed before the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C35408
- Parties
- Applicants/appellants: Nancy Scott et al.; Respondent: The Corporation of the County of Wellington; Respondent: The Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington; Respondents: Woolwich Agricultural Society and Activa Holdings Ltd.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 June 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Justice James H. Clarke Dated October 24, 2000
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Planning Act Compliance, Procedural Challenges on Appeal, De Minimis Doctrine, Admissibility of New Arguments on Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nancy Scott et al.
Applicants/appellants
The Corporation of the County of Wellington
Respondent
The Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington
Respondent
Woolwich Agricultural Society and Activa Holdings Ltd.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Justice James H. Clarke Dated October 24, 2000
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the March 29, 2000 meeting complied with the Planning Act
- 2 Whether any noncompliance was material or de minimis
- 3 Whether the appellants may raise for the first time on appeal the allegation that the County failed its obligations under the Planning Act
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the March 29, 2000 meeting complied with the spirit and purpose of the Planning Act and any procedural shortcomings were de minimis; additionally, the appellants cannot raise new factual arguments on appeal without the evidentiary foundation that should have been placed before the trial judge.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Scott v. Wellington (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-06-25 Docket numbers C35408 Judges Carthy, James Joseph; Doherty, David H.; Moldaver, Michael James Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20010625 DOCKET: C35408 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: NANCY SCOTT ET AL. (Applicants (Appellants with the exception of Jean Innis)) - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF WELLINGTON ET AL. (Respondents (Respondents in Appeal) BEFORE: CARTHY, DOHERTY and MOLDAVER JJ.A. COUNSEL: Peter Pickfield and Stanley Makuch For the appellants John Valeriote and Mark Rodenburg For the respondent the Corporation of the County of Wellington Cavan Acheson and Ian Macmillan For the respondent the Corporation of the Township of Centre Wellington Roderick MacDougall For the respondent Woolwich Agricultural Society and Activa Holdings Ltd. HEARD: June 19 and 20, 2001 On appeal from the order of Justice James H. Clarke dated October 24, 2000. ENDORSEMENT [1] We would dismiss the appeal essentially for the reasons given by Clarke J. [2] Manifestly, as Clarke J. found, the meeting of March 29, 2000 complied with the spirit and purpose of the relevant Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, provisions. To the extent, if any, that it may not have complied strictly with the letter of those provisions, the deficiencies, in our view, were of such a minor nature that they can properly be characterized as de minimis and hence, of no consequence. [3] The appellants' further submission that even if the Township met its obligations under the Planning Act, the County did not, cannot be considered for the first time in this court. Before Clarke J., it was accepted that the meeting was properly held by the County and the Township. The new argument which the appellants' seek to advance raises factual issues which, had they been raised before Clarke J. would have been the subject of additional evidence from the County. Absent that evidentiary base, it would be inappropriate for this court to consider the argument. [4] In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Signed: "J.J. Carthy J.A." "D.H. Doherty J.A." "M.J. Moldaver J.A."