Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Miller.  O.J. No. 5431, October 22, 2014
Successfully acted on behalf of the landowner where the Divisional Court denied the Province’s motion for leave to appeal the Decision/Order of the Ontario Municipal Board on the interpretation of the Growth Plan Transition Regulation 311/06. The Court determined that the OMB’s field-specific expertise together with its familiarity with its home statute and constellation of accompanying statutes and regulations lead the Court to defer to the Board resulting in the Divisional Court denial of leave. The Province amended the Planning Act partly as a result of this case.
Niagara Escarpment Commission v. Paletta International Corp. (2008), 39 M.P.L.R. (4th) 6, 229 O.A.C. 112, 57 O.M.B.R. 264, Divisional Court.
Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton as the Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Divisional Court determined that the developers’ applications were subject to the current Niagara Escarpment and Planning Development Act; that the “clergy principle” was a policy decision, and not a rule of statutory interpretation; and that the developer did not have a vested, accrued or accruing right that such a decision violated. Leave to appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Niagara Escarpment Commission v. Paletta International Corp., cited as Halton (Region) v. Ontario (Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing). (2007) 31 M.P.L.R. (4th) 252, 55 O.M.B.R. 443, Divisional Court, Motion for Leave to Appeal.
Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton on the motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Divisional Court granted leave as there was reason to doubt correctness of Board’s decision because it failed to properly address the basic jurisdictional issue raised before it.
Ron Coles Holdings Ltd. v. Mono (Town). 2004 Carswell Ont 1813; Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Successfully obtained a ruling from the Court that each party would bear their own costs arising out of litigation from a front-ending agreement for a municipal water tower and associated water system.
Niagara Falls Bridge Commission v. Niagara-on-the-Lake. July 12, 2001, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).
The Order obtained from the Court determined that the Bridge Commission’s federal undertaking at the Lewiston Queenston bridge plaza was exempt from the Planning and Building Code Act regimes of Ontario.
913719 Ontario Ltd. v. North York (City). (1998) 47 M.P.L.R. (2d) 274, 114 O.A.C. 353, 37 O.M.B.R. 142, 41 O.R. (3d) 298, Divisional Court.
Successfully obtained a ruling from the Court that it would deal with its proceeding prior to the Ontario Municipal Board proceeding. The case is a leading decision on the determination of the primacy of forum between the Court and the Ontario Municipal Board matters on challenges to the validity of zoning by-laws on constitutional grounds.
Richmond Hill (Town) v. York Region Condominium Corporation. October 31, 1996; Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).
Co-counsel representing the Town in proceeding to enforce orders under the Building Code Act against a “sinking” condominium building.
913719 Ontario Ltd. v. Niagara Falls (City). (1995) 29 M.P.L.R. (2d) 1, 84 O.A.C. 149, Ontario Court of Appeal.
Successfully defended major adult video chain on charges of operating as an adult entertainment by-law contrary to the City of Niagara Falls adult entertainment by-law and zoning by-law resulting in the Ontario Court of Appeal determining that the store was a retail store under the City’s zoning by-law, declaring the adult entertainment parlour by-law invalid, in part, and quashing the prior convictions by the lower court.