Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), (1991) 46 O.A.C. 246 (DC)

• Judge: Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Craig and Montgomery, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 46 O.A.C. 246 (DC)

Hamilton-Wentworth v. Ont. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 246 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (applicant) v. Minister of Transportation for the province of Ontario (respondent) and Corporation of the city of Stoney Creek, Red Hill Developers and Landowners Group and Citizens' Expressway Committee (intervenants)

(80/91)

Indexed As: Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation)

Ontario Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Craig and Montgomery, JJ.

March 25, 1991.

Summary:

The Ontario Minister of Transportation announced that he was "refusing to fund" a highway construction project in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. The regional municipality applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - The Ontario Minister of Transportation committed funds to a highway construction project - Construction began - The government changed following an election - The new Minister of Transportation announced that he was refusing to fund the project for environmental reasons - The regional municipality involved applied to quash the new Minister's decision and sought an order requiring the Minister to act in accordance with the legitimate expectations of the regional municipality and provide the funding - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectations did not impose any obligation on the government in these circumstances - See paragraph 50.

Administrative Law - Topic 3203

Judicial review - Matters not subject to review - The Ontario Minister of Transportation committed government funds to a highway construction project - Construction began - The government changed following an election - The new Minister of Transportation announced that he was refusing to fund the project for environmental reasons - The regional municipality involved sought judicial review of the new Minister's decision - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the new Minister's decision, which was a policy decision respecting the allocation of public funds, was not subject to judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 5010

Judicial review - Certiorari - Jurisdiction - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3203].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Liverpool Corporation, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association, [1972] 2 Q.B. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Homex Realty and Development Co. Ltd. v. Wyoming (Village) (1980), 33 N.R. 475; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Re Doctors Hospital and Minister of Health et al. (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 164 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 34, 48].

In Re Multi-Malls Inc. and the Minister of Transportation and Communication (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 34, 48].

Council of Civil Service Unions et al., Re, [1985] A.C. 374; 62 N.R. 336, refd to. [para. 35].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al. (1990), 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (1990), 71 D.L.R.(4th) 99 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Lords Com'rs of the Treasury (1872), L.R. 7 Q.B. 387, refd to. [para. 45].

Re Metropolitan General Hospital and Minister of Health (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 669 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 421, generally [paras. 48, 49]; sect. 21 [paras. 22, 26]; sect. 79 [para. 26]; sect. 79(2) [para. 24]; sect. 88 [paras. 25, 26, 37]; sect. 99 [paras. 4, 26, 40]; sect. 99(2) [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wade, H.W.R., Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), pp. 263 [para. 49]; 662 [para. 45].

Counsel:

T. Lederer and T. Endicott, for the applicant, regional municipality;

T.C. Marshall, Q.C., and L. LaPierre, for the respondent, Minister of Transportation;

R. Plant, Q.C., for the intervenor, Corporation of the City of Stoney Creek;

J.A. Scarfone, for the intervenor, Red Hill Developers and Landowners Group.

This application was heard on March 12 and 13, 1991, before Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Craig and Montgomery, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the Court was delivered by Callaghan, C.J.O.C., and released on March 25, 1991: