Oshawa v. Durham

Oshawa v. Durham Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-04-13 Docket numbers C25771 Judges Finlayson, George Duncan; Labrosse, Jean-Marc; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 19990413 DOCKET: C25771 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA (Respondent) v. THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM (Appellant) BEFORE: FINLAYSON, LABROSSE and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: David J.D. Sims, Q.C. For the appellant Jonathan H. Wigley For the respondent HEARD: April 9, 1999 On appeal from the judgment of Taliano J. dated September 19, 1996. ENDORSEMENT [1] This appeal involves a property dispute over the Whitby Court House between the City of Oshawa (“the City”) and the Regional Municipality of Durham (“the Region”). For the purpose of this appeal, the Region is the successor to the County of Ontario (“the County”). [2] Following a trial heard upon an Agreed Statement of Facts, Taliano J. found in favour of the City and granted it the interest it claimed in the Whitby Court House. The facts are fully stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts and few facts need to be referred to for the purpose of this appeal. [3] On September 3, 1963, the City and the County entered into an agreement that provided for the acquisition of land and the construction and maintenance of a new court house and County of Ontario administration facilities (“the property”). The agreement provided that the parties were to share the ownership of the property as tenants in common in proportion to an agreed formula. The lands would be registered in the name of the County and the County agreed that, at the request of the City, it would convey the City’s equity in the property to the City. In other words, the property was being held in trust by the County. [4] On January 1, 1968, the Province of Ontario assumed responsibility for the administration of justice in the Province. It entered into an agreement with the County whereby it assumed payment of the balance of debentures issued to finance the property and thereafter undertook to pay rent for the property. The rent payments were commenced after payment of the debentures in May 1974 and have been paid to this date to the Region. [5] In 1973, an act was passed to establish the Regional Municipality of Durham (“the Regional Statute”). The Regional Statute amalgamated the County and various other communities to form the Region. Under the Regional Statute the City remained a separate corporate entity from the Region. [6] The Region does not dispute that the City had an interest in the property before the passage of the Regional Statute. However, it takes the position, on a number of grounds, that the City’s interest was subsequently extinguished. Extinguishment [7] The Region submits that the interest of the City was extinguished by the Regional Statute. [8] The trial judge correctly noted that there was no provision in the Regional Statute that extinguished the City’s interest. Essentially, he concluded that, with respect to the agreement dealing with the property, the “new” City stood in the shoes of the “old” City and that the Region stepped in for the County. [9] We see no error on the part of the trial judge in his interpretation of the Regional Statute. Arbitration [10] The Regional Statute provided for an arbitration mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising from the disposition of assets and liabilities of the municipal areas involved. [11] The trial judge noted that the City was not named as one of the municipalities covered by the arbitration provision in the Regional Statute. Moreover, the arbitration award did not indicate that anything other than the County’s interest in the property was being determined. Nothing in the award indicated that the City was losing its interest in the property. [12] The trial judge concluded that the arbitration award did not apply to the City. We agree. Acquiescence/Estoppel/Laches [13] The trial judge concluded that the City never did any act that could be construed as inducing or encouraging the belief in the Region that the City was relinquishing its property rights. The City did nothing to mislead the Region into acting in a manner that was detrimental to the Region’s interest nor did the Region rely on anything that the City did to its own detriment with respect to the property. [14] The evidence supports the conclusion of the trial judge and this argument fails. Other Arguments [15] The Region has also raised arguments with respect to prescription of the City’s action, constructive or resulting trusts and oversight in the legislation. We see no merit in these arguments for the reasons expressed by the trial judge. Cross-Appeal [16] With respect to the entitlement of the City to claim arrears of rent from May 1974 (or 1984 when the issue of ownership of the courthouse was raised by the City) the trial judge found it inexcusable on the part of the City to have sat on its rights in this regard until 1988, when a demand was first made upon the Region for the arrears. [17] The trial judge applied a flexible approach to service the ends of fairness and justice and his conclusion on this issue is supported by the evidence. [18] In the result, the appeal and the cross-appeal are both dismissed with costs.