On July 8, 2016 Reasons for Judgment were released in
2149629 Ontario Inc. v. The Regional Municipality of York,
2016 ONSC 4510.
The plaintiff's claim related to a development charge
pre-payment agreement it entered into with the Regional
Municipality of York (the "Pre-Payment Agreement")
pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997, SO 1997, c
27. The Pre-Payment Agreement permitted the plaintiff to pre-pay
development charges for a new residential subdivision in the
Township of King in accordance with the Region's 2007
development charge by-law, instead of the new 2012 development
charge by-law, provided the plaintiff registered its plan of
subdivision by December 17, 2012.
The plaintiff was required to satisfy certain conditions imposed
by the lower-tier municipality (the Township of King (the
"Township")) and the upper-tier municipality (the Region)
before registration could occur.
The plaintiff failed to meet the Pre-Payment Agreement's
registration deadline, due in part to its failure to satisfy a
dewatering condition imposed by the Region. The plaintiff's
failure to meet the deadline resulted in increased development
charges of $560,051 payable by the plaintiff for the development.
The plaintiff initiated a civil action against the Region claiming
damages for the increased development charges. The plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the Region had been negligent
when dealing with the plaintiff.
The Region brought a summary judgement motion in advance of
examinations for discovery and was successful in dismissing the
plaintiff's action in its entirety.
In particular, the Court held:
There was no evidence advanced by the
plaintiff to establish the appropriate standard of care. In any
event, there was no basis to find negligence against the Region
regardless of the applicable standard of care.
The plaintiff knew or ought to have
known of the dewatering condition prior to November 2012.
There was no agency relationship
between the Region and the Township.
The Region took extraordinary steps
to provide assistance to the plaintiff.
The Region dealt with the plaintiff
in good faith and made best efforts to assist the plaintiff in
meeting the dewatering condition (exemplified by the speed at which
the Region's hydrogeologist reviewed the dewatering plan when
it was submitted).
Relief from forfeiture did not apply
as the payment of the enhanced development charges was not a
penalty; rather, the plaintiff failed to qualify for a benefit that
was offered by the Region.
The Region had fulfilled all of its
contractual obligations under the Pre-Payment Agreement and
"put forward its best efforts to assist" the plaintiff in
meeting the dewatering condition.
This decision also provides a helpful analysis on the legal
nature of the relationship between upper-tier and lower-tier
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).