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
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
LPC Case - Factum City of Ottawa
789
Reads
1
Readcasts
812
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
