Bloom (Albert) Ltd. et al. v. Bentinck (Township) et al., (1996) 1 O.T.C. 1 (GD)

• Judge: D. Lane, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 1 O.T.C. 1 (GD)

Bloom Ltd. v. Bentinck (1996), 1 O.T.C. 1 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Albert Bloom Limited and 280703 Ontario Limited carrying on business as Hanover County Fair Plaza (applicants) v. Joe Gray, Chief Building Official of the Township of Bentinck; The Corporation of the Township of Bentinck; and Bentan Investments Limited (respondents)

(4858/95; 4886/95)

Indexed As: Bloom (Albert) Ltd. et al. v. Bentinck (Township) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

D. Lane, J.

April 22, 1996.

Summary:

Bentan Investments proposed to build a Wal-Mart. The municipality passed the necessary zoning bylaw to permit the project to go ahead. Bentan Investments obtained the necessary building permit. Owners of a shopping centre appealed the issuance of the building permit under s. 25 of the Building Code Act and applied to quash the bylaw.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the appeal and the application.

Land Regulation - Topic 2608

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - En­actment and interpretation - Validity of zoning bylaw - Notice requirement - See paragraphs 87 to 90.

Land Regulation - Topic 2609

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - En­actment and interpretation - Validity of zoning bylaw - Bad faith - See para­graphs 61 to 97.

Land Regulation - Topic 2673

Land use control - Zoning bylaws - Per­mitted uses - Commercial - Space exten­sive commercial - See paragraphs 12 to 54.

Land Regulation - Topic 3204

Land use control - Building or develop­ment permits - Issue of - Validity of - Permitted uses - See paragraphs 12 to 54.

Land Regulation - Topic 3209

Land use control - Building or develop­ment permits - Authority or jurisdiction to issue - See paragraphs 56 to 57.

Municipal Law - Topic 3853

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Lack of good faith - See paragraphs 61 to 97.

Cases Noticed:

Woodglen & Co. v. North York and Building Inspector for North York (Uzumeri) (1984), 5 O.A.C. 313; 47 O.R.(2d) 614 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Kuchma v. Tache (Rural Municipality), [1945] 2 S.C.R. 234, refd to. [para. 9].

893472 Ontario Ltd. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town) (1991), 7 M.P.L.R.(2d) 296 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

Ernted Investments Ltd. v. Toronto (City) (1989), 44 M.P.L.R. 173 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), dist. [para. 10].

Howard v. Toronto (1928), 61 O.L.R. 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Montreal (City) v. Beauvais (1909), 42 S.C.R. 211, refd to. [para. 60].

Hollett v. Halifax (City) (1975), 58 D.L.R.(3d) 746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Winton (H.G.) Ltd. v. North York (Bor­ough) (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 737 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Journal Printing Co. v. McVeity (1915), 33 Q.L.R. 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Huson v. South Norwich (Township) (1892), 19 O.A.R. 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Homex Realty & Development Co. v. Wyoming (Village), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011; 33 N.R. 475; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Immeubles Port Louis Ltee v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 173; 78 D.L.R.(4th) 175, refd to. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Bentinck (Town) Bylaws, Zoning Bylaws, Bylaw No. 1/94 [para. 66]; Bylaw No. 2/94 [paras. 8, 66]; Bylaw No. 40/94 [paras. 59, 75]; Bylaw No. 41/94 [para. 75]; Bylaw No. 213/90, sect. 3.26 [para. 12]; Bylaw No. 312/91 [para. 8].

Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, sect. 8(2)(a) [para. 3]; sect. 25 [para. 1]; sect. 25(4) [para. 9].

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-56, generally [para. 79].

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-13, sect. 26(4) [para. 59].

Planning Act Regulations (Ont.), Removal of Holding Symbol from Zoning By-Law, Reg. 919 [para. 88].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogers, Ian MacFee, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, s. 193.21 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Adam J. Brown and Alan B. Dryer, for the applicants;

James M. Wortzman, for the respondent, Bentan Investments Ltd.;

J. Robert Boxma, for the respondents, Joe Gray and The Corporation of the Town­ship of Bentinck.

These applications were heard on Novem­ber 23 and 24, December 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1995, and January 16, 17, 18 and 19, 1996, before D. Lane, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the fol­lowing judgment and released the written decision on April 22, 1996.