Home
David Scrimshaw's Library tagged → View Popular
Greenhalgh v. Douro-Dummer (Township), 2009 CanLII 71014 (ON S.C.)
-
The general rule seems to be that, in the absence of a statute so providing, a
municipality is not under a duty to the traveling public to place stop signs or
other road signs or warning markers on the road or highway within the
municipality except where there may be a danger or hazard of such a character
that it is reasonable to require a notice of some kind to be given to bring that
peril to the attention of those using the road. The exercise of any
statutory or any other power or authority to erect such signs lies very largely
within the realm of common sense and a prudent discretion on the part of the
municipal council -
the mere existence of a hazard or danger does not in and of itself give rise to
a duty on the part of the municipality to erect a sign - 4 more annotations...
CanLII - 2009 CanLII 65802 (ON S.C.D.C.)
The words “have regard to” do not by themselves suggest more than minimal deference to the decision of Municipal Council. However, in the context of the Planning Act, and balancing the public interest mandates of both the Board and the municipality, I would agree with Member Stefanko in Keswick Sutherland that the Board has an obligation to at least scrutinize and carefully consider the Council decision, as well as the information and material that was before Council
-
The legislature used language that suggests minimal deference when choosing the
words “have regard to”, considering the many other expressions it could have
used to signal the level of deference suggested by the City in this
appeal. In my view the traditional role of the Board, and the broad powers
it exercises, should not be altered radically without a more clear and specific
expression of legislative intent
Municipal Parking Corporation v. Toronto (City), 2009 CanLII 65385 (ON S.C.)
the City was justified in trying to regulate the practice of PPEAs in the fashion that it chose with the Amending By-Law rather than merely regulating the form and content of violation notices or prescribing maximum penalties.
-
it has been conclusively established that the by-law’s purpose is consumer
protection. -
Municipal by-laws are not
subject to review for “unreasonableness” that falls short of bad faith.
Municipal councils are elected representatives of their community, accountable
to their constituents. - 4 more annotations...
Repic v. Hamilton (City), 2009 CanLII 60673 (ON S.C.)
[91] The City’s failure to provide a safe intersection for all users is disrepair and, accordingly, I am satisfied that the City of Hamilton has breached its statutory duty in its failure to make any modifications to the design of this intersection.
-
I find that the choice of the Parclo A4 interchange design at this location was
a policy decision. However, the actual construction of the interchange,
any modifications to the design, decisions regarding markage, signage, traffic
control devices, or any other such controls, are operation or implementation
decisions and are subject to scrutiny by the court -
the evidence of Mr. Vandermark was very telling. He testified that modifications
to the design, such as signage, the movement of the light pole, or implementing
concepts as suggested by Mr. Robinson, would not require City/Regional Council
approval - 6 more annotations...
Anderson v. Hamilton (City), 2009 CanLII 56739 (ON S.C.)
[45] Each case of non-repair of sidewalks is governed by its own factual basis.
[46] A municipality is not an insurer of anyone walking on its streets. No one can expect that sidewalks are as smooth as a billiard table.
-
The law is that the onus is on the plaintiff to
establish that Hamilton was at fault because of non-repair. The plaintiff is
than obliged to show that because of that non-repair she fell and injured
herself. Once that is established, Hamilton is able to
rely on the defences set out in s.44(3) the Municipal Act -
I find that the City of Hamilton did have a
regular inspection routine. This routine was more than some courts have called
for. In some cases inspections every three years was acceptable. The City of
Hamilton has satisfied the duty placed on it by having regular
inspections
Feather v. Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town), 2009 CanLII 56305 (ON S.C.)
The court appreciates that, generally speaking, ten years is a long time for a residential use to continue in relation to an uninhabitable bungalow. The court is also aware that previously reported judicial decisions have almost all involved much shorter periods of time and many of those periods have been found to involve an abandonment or discontinuance of use. Nevertheless, there is no general limitation period and each case must be decided on its own facts
-
The law is clear that the intention of the owner must be considered in
determining whether a use has continued. The law is also clear that the
owner’s intention, while an important factor, is not determinative. The
court must also assess whether the owner has continued the intended use of the
land, building or structure as much as possible in all of the circumstances
Credit Union Central of Ontario Limited v. Fibratech Manufacturing Inc., 2008 CanLII 70243 (ON S.C.)
the claim of the Town under the Municipal Act does not extend to machinery and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land
-
[17]
I accept that the Municipal Act and the
Assessment Act may be statutes in para material. I do not accept that the
same word "land" in this case should be accorded the same meaning when it is in
fact defined in different ways
Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 (CanLII)
[148] The indisputable fact which I find on the evidence in this case is that the use of cut and cover construction was endorsed because it was cheaper and, in combination with some other aspects of the SNC-Lavalin/Serco proposal, reduced cost by more than $400 million so as to permit construction within the range of public funding commitments. The reduction in cost was achieved by imposing an unacceptable burden on Hazel & Co. A loss of more than $500,000 over four years resulting from the decline in sales and the reduction of approximately 50% in gross profit caused solely by cut and cover construction, cannot be regarded as a tolerable or acceptable burden which should be absorbed by Hazel & Co. as its contribution to the realization of a project of general public utility
Marcotte v. Longueuil (City), 2009 SCC 43 (CanLII)
the class action is not an appropriate procedure for seeking to quash a municipal by‑law. Although the actions M and UP wish to institute fall undeniably within the ambit of art. 33 C.C.P., other causes of nullity, such as formal defects and irregularities, would instead fall within the framework of annulment proceedings over which the Superior Court is granted jurisdiction in statutes relating to municipalities. Recourse to the class action in such situations could hamper the conduct of proceedings that are in principle simple and quick, and would hardly be consistent with the principle of proportionality set out in art. 4.2 C.C.P., according to which litigation must be consistent with the principles of good faith and of balance between litigants and must not result in an abuse of the public service provided by the institutions of the civil justice system
Breslaw v. Montreal (City), 2009 SCC 44 (CanLII)
the only possible result of a declaration of inconsistency would be to require the City to recalculate its budget and its taxes, including the amount of the property tax. The conclusions of inconsistency would not give rise at this point to a liquid and exigible claim. Such a claim could only be established at the end of a new fiscal and budgetary exercise
Home Depot Holdings Inc. v. Markham (Town), 2009 CanLII 34763 (ON S.C.)
s. 331 Municipal Act: the use of the word “determined” in the phrase “amount determined for the year” means that the amount is the result of a calculation, and not the amount actually billed.
-
the use of the word “determined” in the phrase “amount determined for the year”
means that the amount is the result of a calculation, and not the amount
actually billed -
The meaning of “the
amount determined for the year” must likewise further the object of s. 331,
while according with the scheme of the Act and common law principles - 1 more annotations...
Fenton v. North York Hydro Electric Commission, 1996 CanLII 1102 (ON C.A.)
Exploring the limits of the old 6-month limitation
Canadian Association of Family Resource Program v. Nipigon (Township), 2006 CanLII 40784 (ON S.C.)
No action or other proceeding shall be instituted against any person for anything done in establishing, maintaining or operating a public utility more than 6 months after the cause of action arose
Clark v. Peterborough Utilities Commission, 1995 CanLII 7090 (ON S.C.)
-
[117] In
failing to give Mr. McKnight and his staff any guidance as to what
“satisfactory payment history” should entail and in failing to direct expressly
what would be effective but reasonable alternative forms of security to fully
compensating cash deposits in doing so, I find that the Peterborough Utilities
Commission did not exercise the discretion granted to it by s. 50(4) to
determine from whom security would be required and what is “reasonable security
for the payment of proper charges”. Instead, the Commission allowed the
substitution for its judgment of that of a non-elected official -
so doing, the P.U.C. was not authorized by the Public Utilities Act in
the formulation and conduct of its security policy - 1 more annotations...
710357 Ontario Ltd. v. Penetanguishene (Town of), 1998 CanLII 7156 (ON C.A.)
if "consumer" is given its plain ordinary meaning, as I think it should be, a landlord-owner is not a consumer.
-
Consumer as referred to in the Act is that person who uses, that is
consumes, water supplied by a municipal corporation or a public utilities
commission. That interpretation of consumer seems to me to accommodate the
ordinary meaning of the word "consumer" and it accords with the statutory
provisions set out in the Act that deal with the obligation to pay for
utilities
Schneider v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, 2009 ONCA 640 (CanLII)
x-country skier goes off trail breaks leg on hidden concrete wall
-
s. 4 of the Act, and s. 4(4)(f) specifically, was intended to encourage
occupiers to make their lands available to the public for recreational use. -
Imposing a lesser duty of care
on occupiers of recreational trails of all kinds appears to have been justified
on the basis that the existence and availability of these trails was heavily
dependent on the use of private lands: see Discussion Paper, at p.
7. As a result, changes to the law limiting occupiers’ liability were
warranted to encourage occupiers to make their land available for recreational
activities. - 2 more annotations...
Chang v. Toronto (City), 2009 CanLII 45438 (ON S.C.)
It is not the responsibility of the CBO to tell Mr. Chang what to build. It is for him to present a proposal, supported by the plans and specifications required by the regulation. The role of the CBO is to measure that proposal against the applicable legal requirements
-
[23] The principles to be applied to
a review of a decision of the CBO in relation to a building permit are well
established -
A building permit issued “based on a misunderstanding of the facts” is issued in
error and can be revoked:
Thunder Bay (City) v. Magdamo, 2009 CanLII 44295 (ON S.C.)
Surplus in sewer account goes to orginal landowners who paid into it, not subsequent purchasers of the land
-
the surplus must be repaid to those who paid the money originally for several
reasons -
the funds being held by the city do not constitute “an interest in land”. They
do not pass with the land. The registration of the agreement upon title was
simply to establish for the benefit of future owners that a payment towards
these improvements had already been made. There was no intention to assign the
money in question to anyone. Such a benefit was not within the contemplation of
anyone at the time - 3 more annotations...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in Municipal
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo