HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Requesting the PDFs now. Thx!
Toronto 175 Cummer | 10.49m | 3s | City of Toronto | Montgomery Sisam
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Requesting the PDFs now. Thx!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It's both a S.43 review and a Divisional Court challenge. Neither of which has to be granted, remember, and the burden of proof is put on the appellant so it's harder to get it through, but yes, more delays...
Northern Light
Superstar
That's new info to me, so thanks for that.
***
My reading of S.43 is that there is no basis for a review; I'll be interested to see if the Chair agrees w/me. The standard for a Divisional Court appeal, I believe, is similar. (due process violation, error at law). To the extent that is the case, I would again reaffirm my view that the appeal should be dismissed, preferably with costs.
rdaner
Senior Member
What do they say about winning a battle but losing the war? The groups must know that they will only delay this and that this is an example of a much larger trend.
christiesplits
Senior Member
Shameful. Of course, absolute silence from the local Willowdale MPP and cabinet minister.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It's an absolute cuck move if the City doesn't pursue costs at this stage. It also sets a precedent for future frivolous appeals of this nature.
Why would they opine? They're both publicly on the side of the appellants.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Opponents of Willowdale supportive housing plan throw another hurdle at the project
The group's request for a review of the appeal ruling is the latest twist in a years-long saga surrounding the city's development plans for supportive housing at 175 Cummer Ave.
www.thestar.com
Northern Light
Superstar
Opponents of Willowdale supportive housing plan throw another hurdle at the project
The group's request for a review of the appeal ruling is the latest twist in a years-long saga surrounding the city's development plans for supportive housing at 175 Cummer Ave.
As that will behind the paywall to most; i will bring forward a key bit:
Again, a lay opinion here, but I don't find either of the two arguments made above rise to the standard for a review of the decision.
Even if, they were errors in law; it doesn't follow to me that it would have altered the outcome of the decision.
I am disappointed with the time-wasting here, and will be more so if that adds any substantive barrier to this project.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
The specious NIMBY appeal to the Divisional Court has been thrown-out..! 
"The motion for leave to appeal the order of The Ontario Land Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated January 2, 2024 is dismissed without costs."
LINK - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2024/2024onsc2712/2024onsc2712.pdf
Hopefully, this means that construction can begin ASAP -- and be completed / move-in before Christmas 2024.
"The motion for leave to appeal the order of The Ontario Land Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated January 2, 2024 is dismissed without costs."
LINK - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2024/2024onsc2712/2024onsc2712.pdf
Hopefully, this means that construction can begin ASAP -- and be completed / move-in before Christmas 2024.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Toronto Star - “An Ontario court has rejected the latest attempt to stop the construction of supportive housing in Willowdale for people escaping homelessness.
The Superior Court of Justice has refused to hear an appeal of a January decision by the Ontario Land Tribunal that seemed to finally pave the way for the city’s long-delayed three-storey building at 175 Cummer Avenue. The project will provide 59 units of deeply affordable rental homes, with on-site supports such as mental and physical health care, as a stepping stone toward fully independent living...”
STORY - https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/op...cle_ecf72fce-17b0-11ef-a8b2-73f28db8ac65.html
The Superior Court of Justice has refused to hear an appeal of a January decision by the Ontario Land Tribunal that seemed to finally pave the way for the city’s long-delayed three-storey building at 175 Cummer Avenue. The project will provide 59 units of deeply affordable rental homes, with on-site supports such as mental and physical health care, as a stepping stone toward fully independent living...”
STORY - https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/op...cle_ecf72fce-17b0-11ef-a8b2-73f28db8ac65.html
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Excellent news, but should not have been without costs, especially when one considers how much time and money both Planning and City Legal spent on this nonsense challenge. it just empowers others to do the same if there are essentially no repercussions.
Northern Light
Superstar
I concur.
I happen to favour retaining access to third party appeals to OLT, subject to reasonable conditions, and likewise, one ought to be able to seek judicial review if one believes the process to be tainted.
But, there is an affirmative obligation that any appeal be in good faith; that is to say, there is at least sufficient merit to warrant a full hearing. That was not the case here, I would argue the filing was vexatious in the way a SLAP lawsuit would be; entirely designed to cause harm/intimidate, not to raise a legitimate point of law.
In such a case, I feel awarding of costs would be more than fair.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Per the article, Gillespie is now going for a "request for judicial review" and mentions "a recent case has said that if a question of law is not raised cases are still judicially reviewable". Article doesn't mention (and maybe he didn't specify for the reporter) what case he's talking about.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Wow, this Gillespie person sounds like a real piece of work.
And I agree, absolutely should go after costs on appeals with frivolous justification.
And I agree, absolutely should go after costs on appeals with frivolous justification.
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Light
Superstar
I can't make sense of the argument as put forward in the article.
A three judge panel has ruled that it will not review the case; that's the Court's purview.
What's the suggestion here, going to the Court of Appeal to order a review of the non-review or to order a review by judges clearly not sympathetic to the appellant's argument.
Good way to boost one's legal fees I suppose, but not a good use of the Court's time.