Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. Hamilton-Wentworth Save the Valley Committee Inc. and Limeridge Road Property Owners Interest Group Inc., (1985) 11 O.A.C. 8 (DC)

• Judge: Osler, J., Holland and Rosenberg, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1985), 11 O.A.C. 8 (DC);1985 CanLII 1957 (NB QB);1985 CanLII 1957 (ON SC);51 OR (2d) 23;19 DLR (4th) 356;15 Admin LR 86;[1985] OJ No 1881 (QL);11 OAC 8;2 CPC (2d) 117

Hamilton-Wentworth v. Save the Valley (1985), 11 O.A.C. 8 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth v. Hamilton-Wentworth Save the Valley Committee Inc. and Limeridge Road Property Owners Interest Group Inc.

(No. 14/85)

Indexed As: Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. Hamilton-Wentworth Save the Valley Committee Inc. and Limeridge Road Property Owners Interest Group Inc.

Ontario Divisional Court

Osler, J., Holland and Rosenberg, JJ.

June 28, 1985.

Summary:

The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth decided to construct a new road connecting Highway 403 in Ancaster to the Queen Elizabeth Way in the eastern portion of Hamilton. To do so, it was required to obtain necessary approvals for the project under two or more statutes. The Region appeared before a joint board constituted under the Consolidated Hearing Act for such purpose. Two citizens groups, among others, objected to the project and desired to appear before the board. The groups sought funding from the board. The board held that it had jurisdiction to order the Region to provide advance funding to the groups under its jurisdiction to award costs in s. 7 of the Act. The Region applied to quash the board's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9065

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction - Joint board - Consolidated Hearings Act (Ont.) - A regional municipality applied to a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act for approvals under various statutes for construction of a road - Two citizens groups appeared before the board as interested parties, opposing the project - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the board had no jurisdiction to order the region to provide funds in advance to the groups under its jurisdiction to award costs.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - The Ontario Divisional Court permitted four groups to intervene as friends of the court on an application to quash a decision of a joint board established under the Consolidated Hearings Act, where the court's decision would have a profound effect on many parties, especially those having occasion to appear before such boards, and where the four intervenors might assist the court by way of argument - See paragraphs 60 to 65.

Practice - Topic 6921

Costs - General - The Ontario Divisional Court referred to the characteristics of costs - See paragraph 21.

Words and Phrases

Costs - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the word "costs" as found in s. 7 of the Consolidated Hearings Act, S.O. 1981, c. 20, did not include advance funding to intervenors appearing before a joint board under the Act.

Cases Noticed:

Northern Engineering and Development Co. and Philips, In re; Municipal and Public Utility Board, In re, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 615 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

Bell Canada and Canadian Radio-Television Commission, Re (1982), 48 N.R. 197; 34 C.P.C. 121 (Fed. C.A.), consd. [paras. 19, 42].

Green, Michaels & Associates Ltd. et al. v. Public Utilities Board, [1979] 2 W.W.R. 481; 13 A.R. 574 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [paras. 19, 41].

Ryan v. McGregor, [1926] 1 D.L.R. 476, consd. [para. 22].

Walker v. Gurney-Tilden Co. (1899), 19 P.R. (Ont.) 12, refd to. [para. 22].

King v. King, [1943] P. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Wallersteiner v. Moir (No. 2), [1975] 1 All E.R. 849 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Thompson Estate, Re, [1944] O.R. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Victoria Hospital Corporation Energy From Waste Facility, Re (1983), 15 O.M.B.R. 129, apprvd of [para. 36].

Ontario Hydro-Southwestern Ontario Transmission System Expansion Program, Re (1982), 11 CELR 53, apprvd of [para. 37].

Manitoba Society of Seniors Inc. v. Greater Winnipeg Gas Co. (1982), 18 Man.R.(2d) 440, appld. [para. 38].

Bell Canada, Re (1982), 41 N.R. 221; 63 C.P.R.(2d) 44; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 641, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Consolidated Hearings Act, S.O. 1981, c. 20, sect. 7(3), sect. 7(4), sect. 7(5), sect. 7(6), [paras. 11-13, 51]; sect. 11, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15(1)(c) [para. 16].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 13.01 [paras. 62-63]; rule 13.02 [para. 62]; rule 13.03(1) [para. 64].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Marshall, Law of Costs (1860), pp. 19 [para. 25].

Blackstone's Commentaries on The Laws of England (1857), vol. 3, pp. 429-432 [para. 25].

Counsel:

J.E. Sexton, Q.C., and T.R. Lederer, for the applicant;

B.H. Kellock, Q.C., for Union Gas;

I. Scott, Q.C., P. Muldon and D. Poch, for the intervenors, Energy Probe & Canadian Environmental Law Association (C.E.L.A.);

A.J. Roman, for the intervenor, the Ontario Energy Board;

H. Turkstra and J. Grahek, for the respondents;

Bruce Campbell and Laura Formusa, for Ontario Hydro.

This application was heard before Osler, J. Holland and Rosenberg, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on April 17-19, 1985. The decision of the Divisional Court was released on June 28, 1985, when the following opinions were filed:

J. Holland, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 56

The Court - see paragraphs 57 to 65.

Osler and Rosenberg, JJ., concurred with J. Holland, J.