Finding that appeal of bylaw amendments was commenced by appellant rather than union was reasonable finding of fact

Respondent CYM proposed to redevelop property. This required municipal approval, specifically, an amendment to two City zoning bylaws. CYM submitted application for zoning changes applicable to property. Following eighteen months of review and public engagement on proposed redevelopment, City staff recommended approval of redevelopment. Appellant JY appealed bylaw amendments to Local Planning Appeal Tribunal pursuant to s. 34(19) of Planning Act. JY brought two motions: motion to set aside order and motion for leave to appeal the reconsideration decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“Reconsideration Tribunal”). Motions dismissed. Reconsideration Tribunal found that there was no basis on which JY's appeal could be construed as appeal on behalf of the Union. Setting aside issue of whether union could ever be appellant given language of s. 34(19), finding of Reconsideration Tribunal that appeal of bylaw amendments was commenced by appellant rather than union was reasonable finding of fact on evidence before tribunal and Reconsideration Tribunal. There was no basis to set these findings aside. In these circumstances, fact that union was now prepared to be substituted for appellant was irrelevant. To do so would effectively be to constitute new appeal.

Yerex v. CYM Toronto Acquisition LP (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 7467, 2019 ONSC 2862, Linhares De Sousa J., Wilton-Siegel J., and Thorburn J. (Ont. Div. Ct.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca.