Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LPC Case - Factum City of Ottawa

LPC Case - Factum City of Ottawa

Ratings: (0)|Views: 934 |Likes:
Published by Jon Willing

More info:

Published by: Jon Willing on Jun 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
See more
See less

01/11/2014

 
DivisionalCourtFileNo.55112CourtofAppealFileNo.M41291
COURTOFAPPEALFORONTAlUOBETWEEN:LANSDOWNEPARKCONSERVANCYMovingParty(Applicant)-and-THECITYOF
OTTA
WARespondingParty(Respondent)
FACTUMOFTHECITYOFOTTAWA
RESPONDINGPARTYTOAMOTIONINWRITINGFORLEAVETOAPPEAL
CITYOFOTTAWA
CityClerk
&
SolicitorDepartment
110LaurierAvenueWest,3
rd
FloorOttawa,OntarioKIP
U1
Attention:StuartHuxley
Tel:(613)580-2424Ext.21630Fax:(613)560-1383SolicitorsfortheRespondingParty(Respondent)City
of
OttawaTO:
PALIAREROLANDROSENBERGROTHSTEINLLP
Barristers
&
Solicitors250UniversityAvenue,Suite501Toronto,ONM5H3E5Attention:AndrewLokan
I
MichaelFenrickTel:(416)646-4324Fax:(416)646-4323SolicitorsfortheMovingParty(Applicant)LansdowneParkConservancy
 
DivisionalCourtFileNo.:
55/12
CourtofAppealFileNo.:M41291
COURTOFAPPEALFORONTARIO
BETWEEN:LANSDOWNEPARKCONSERVANCYApplicant(MovingParty)-and-THECITYOFOTTAWARespondent(RespondingParty)
FACTUMOFTHECITYOFOTTAWA
RESPONDINGPARTYTOAMOTIONINWRITINGFORLEAVETOAPPEALPARTI-OVERVIEWLTheMovingParty,LansdowneParkConservancy,seeksleavetoappealthedecisionoftheDivisionalCourtcomprisedofRegionalSeniorJusticeThen,JusticeSwinton,andJusticeBryantdismissinganapplicationforjudicialreviewofOttawaCityCouncil'sLansdownePartnershipPlan("LPP").TheLPPisasolesourcenegotiationbetweentheCityofOttawaandabusinessconsortiumknownastheOttawaSportsandEntertainmentGroup("OSEO")fortheredevelopmentoftheCity-ownedLansdownePark.2.TheDivisionalCourtfoundthattheMovingParty'sapplicationforjudicialreviewconstitutedanabuseofprocessonthreegroundsandaccordinglydismissedtheapplicationforjudicialreview.First,theapplicationforjudicialreviewrequiredtheMovingPartyto
 
2
establishthatthedecisionsofCityCouncilofApril2009andJune2010weremadewithoutlawfulauthority.TheseissuesweresquarelybeforetheSuperiorCourtofJustice(andsubsequentlyonappealtotheCourtofAppeal)inthe
FriendsofLansdowneInc.(Friends)
litigation.BothCourtsruledthatthesaiddecisionsofCityCouncilwerelegal.Second,therewasdelayonthepartoftheMovingPartyinseekingtheextraordinaryanddiscretionaryremedyofjudicialreview.Third,thecircumstancesinwhichtheMovingPartyabandonedhisearlierapplicationforjudicialreviewseekingthesamerelief,infavourofthe
Friends
applicationalsoconstitutedanabuseofprocess.3.TheMovingPartyhasfailedtomeetthetestforleavetoappealsincethecasedoesnotaddress
any
issuesofgeneralinteresttothepublicorlegalsignificancebeyondthenarrowdisputebetweentheparties.4.OttawaCityCouncil'sdecisiontoredevelopLansdowneParkbywayoftheLPPhasbeenthesubjectofextensivepublicconsultationaswellaslitigation.LitigationhasincludedafulsomehearingbeforeTheHonourableRegionalSeniorJusticeHacklandoftheSuperiorCourtofJusticewhodismissedthelegalchallengesfromthegroupknownasthe
FriendsofLansdowneInc.
onJuly28,2011.AnappealfromthatdecisionwasheardbytheOntarioCourtofAppealonanexpeditedbasisonNovember28,2011,beforeTheHonourableChiefJusticeWinkler,JusticeBlair,andJusticeLang.InitsdecisionreleasedApril30,2012,theCourtofAppealupheldthedecisionofJusticeHackland.5.TheMovingParty'sapplicationwasbroughtbyMr.JohnE.Martin,underhissoleproprietorshipbusinessname,theLansdowneParkConservancy.TheapplicationwasheardonanexpeditedbasisinToronto,beforetheDivisionalCourt.However,the

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Prashant Ganappa liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->