Toronto (City) v. Joint Board (Consolidated Hearings Act) et al., (1991) 52 O.A.C. 302 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, Craig and O'Brien, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 52 O.A.C. 302 (DC)

Toronto v. Joint Bd. (1991), 52 O.A.C. 302 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In the Matter of the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, c. 20, sections 4(11) and 5(3); and

In the Matter of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 494, section 10; and

In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (applicant) v. The Joint Board et al. (respondents)

(No. 1128/90)

Indexed As: Toronto (City) v. Joint Board (Consolidated Hearings Act) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, Craig and O'Brien, JJ.

November 19, 1991.

Summary:

The City of Toronto sought the approval of a joint board formed under the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, to expropriate and extract clay from lands adjoining a landfill site. After 40 days of hearings, the board deferred the hearing to another panel and ordered Toronto to pay costs. Toronto applied to set aside the defer­ment and the award of costs.

The Ontario Divisional Court, dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 567

The hearing and decision - Decisions of tribunal - Motion for nonsuit - A joint board, formed under the Consolidated Hearings Act 1981, heard a motion for a dismissal of an application - The board, after considering the civil procedure for a nonsuit, concluded that the motion was for an early dismissal as opposed to a non-suit and that the application could not succeed - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed the board's finding - See para­graph 24.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Procedural fairness - What constitutes - The City of Toronto sought a Joint Board's approval to expropriate and extract clay - The hearing was to be heard in phases with final arguments at the end - After the first phase of the hearing, two respondents brought a motion for early dismissal of the entire hearing - The board advised Toronto that it intended to hear the motion after adjourning for one month and after allowing Toronto to call evidence to cure any evidentiary deficiency - The Ontario Divisional Court concluded that the prin­ciples of natural justice were not breached - See paragraphs 22 and 23.

Administrative Law - Topic 9065

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Joint Board - Consolidated Hearings Act (Ont.) - Toronto sought approval of a Joint Board to expropriate and extract clay from lands adjoining a landfill site - The hear­ing was to be heard in phases with the final argument given at the end - After the first phase of the hearing two respondents brought a motion for early dismissal of the entire hearing - The board deferred the hearing to another panel and ordered Toronto to pay costs - The Ontario Divi­sional Court concluded that the board acted within its jurisdiction - See para­graphs 17 to 20 and 27 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Flamboro Downs Holdings Ltd. and Teamsters Local 879, Re (1979), 24 O.R.(2d) 400 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Consolidated Hearings Act, S.O. 1981, c. 20, generally [para. 1]; sect. 4(11)(a), sect. 4(11)(b), sect. 5(3)(a), sect. 5(4)(a) [para. 18].

Counsel:

J.H. Francis, Q.C., D.H. Wood, and R. Northey, for the applicant;

F. Finlay, Q.C., I.J. Lord, and B.M. Engell, for the City of Vaughan;

R. Nadarajah and S. Couban, for the Min­istry of Environment.

This action was heard on October 15, and 16, 1991, before O'Driscoll, Craig and O'Brien, JJ., of the Ontario Court of Justice, Divi­sional Court. The decision of the court was released on November 19, 1991 in-cluding the following opinions:

O'Brien, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 27;

Craig, J. - see paragraphs 28 to 37.