Canada Case Law

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Hazelview Investments Inc.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the Board: s.250A(1) requires assessing whether a requested stepback variance materially conflicts with MPS policy, ignoring the Land Use By-law by virtue of the 'notwithstanding' language; the development officer bore the onus to prove a material conflict and failed to do so on the record, so the Board did not err in ordering the variance granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Variance
• Municipal planning strategy
• Land use by-law
• Stepback requirement
• Onus of proof
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited v. North Elgin Centre Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over long-term lease renewals, Planning Act approval, fresh evidence, and costs, leaving the application judge’s orders intact.

• Lease renewal
• Overholding
• Planning act approval
• Admissibility of fresh evidence
• Costs
• Lease-renewal

Read case analysis

Schwartz v. HRM

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The application for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant did not prove the Development Officer lacked authority nor that the decisions were unreasonable under Vavilov; the applicant's public interest argument did not justify deviation from ordinary costs rules; the court awarded costs to respondents, indemnifying CICI 55% of its proven legal costs ($16,880) and awarding HRM $5,000, finding Tariff C inadequate to fully compensate CICI's actual costs.

Source excerpt

• Development agreement amendments
• Judicial review standard of review (reasonableness)
• Authority of development officers
• Costs awards and indemnity
• Public interest litigation

Read case analysis

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Lightfoot

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held that LTCQ notations on first registration do not permanently oust the Planning Act; s.44(1) preserves Planning Act liabilities and does not prevent ss.50 and 50.1 from applying to transfers after conversion, so the application judge properly declared the subsequent transfers subject to the Planning Act and made the requested orders.

Source excerpt

• Planning act ss.50 and 50.1
• Land titles act s.44(1)
• Land titles conversion qualified (ltcq)
• Certificate of pending litigation
• Registration and priorities

Read case analysis

Schwartz v. HRM

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Development Officer had statutory authority under s.245(3A) HRM Charter to approve non-substantive amendments; the challenged changes fell within matters the Brunello DA identified as non-substantial (s.3.1 and s.2.4.4) and were reasonably characterized and processed as non-substantive amendments rather than variances; the DO's reliance on HRM Planning and the resulting decision bear the indicia of reasonableness under Vavilov; accordingly the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Development agreement
• Non-substantive amendment
• Variance
• Standard of review
• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Schwartz v HRM et al

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court exercised its discretionary power under Rule 2.03 to extend the 25 day limitation for filing Notices for Judicial Review to March 28, 2024 because exceptional and compelling circumstances existed: HRM's public notices misled the applicant into pursuing Board appeals within prescribed timelines, the applicant had a bona fide intention and a reasonable excuse for delay in awaiting the Board's jurisdictional decision, the proposed grounds were not frivolous, and while respondents suffered some prejudice, overall justice required granting the extension; costs of $500 were awarded agains…

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Judicial review
• Appeals
• Development agreements
• Procedural delay
• Costs

Read case analysis

D’Silva v. Algranti

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge reasonably found the severance condition was satisfied or waived by the sellers' lawyer's clear representation and by the sellers' conduct, the sellers breached their contractual duty to proceed diligently to obtain consents and therefore could not rely on the finality clause to terminate the APS, and the buyers validly waived title objections and were entitled to specific performance; no reversible legal or factual error was shown.

Source excerpt

• Specific performance
• Agreement of purchase and sale
• Planning act s.50(21)
• Severance/consent to sever
• Waiver
• Estoppel

Read case analysis

Cummins Estate v. Milton (Town)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal held the application judge did not err: the contested activities were not lawful under zoning by‑law 1965‑136 and thus did not constitute a legal non‑conforming use under s.34(9); the proviso limiting business to 25% of floor area plainly referred to building floor space and excluded outdoor storage; the application judge properly exercised discretion regarding the contempt motion and costs; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.

Source excerpt

• Legal non-conforming use
• Zoning by‑law interpretation
• Contested provisos
• Civil contempt
• Costs discretionary awards

Read case analysis

Lacey v. Kakabeka Falls Flying Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the application judge’s factual finding that the lease commenced on January 1, 1967 was open on the record, placing the lease within the pre-May 2, 1968 Planning Act exemption and validating it, and because the appellants’ challenge was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 given their knowledge of the lease and delay in commencing proceedings; additionally, the application process was an inappropriate procedural vehicle for disputed factual issues.

Source excerpt

• Lease validity
• Planning act exemption
• Limitations act limitation periods
• Procedural vehicle: application v. action
• Possession/writ of possession

Read case analysis

Larabie Estate v. Moonbeam (Township)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The application judge correctly found procedural illegality but also correctly exercised his discretion under s.273 not to quash the by-law because the illegality did not meet the threshold for bad faith and the discretionary factors (including consequences and mootness) justified leaving the by-law in force; that discretionary decision is entitled to deference and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Zoning by-law
• Notice requirements
• Bad faith
• Judicial discretion
• Quashing by-law
• Municipal act s.273

Read case analysis