Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON

[Northern Light]

Decision here: https://ontarioplaceprotectors.com/...ontario_place_protectors_v._hmk_judgment_.pdf

read through it, Its not the clearest of wins for the government.

the very least is that apperently that the applicant lacks standing.
Public trust argument is not a thing apperrently

While the judge said the entire act doesnt go against the constitution, he doesnt rule out that any action prohibited by the act couldnt actually be raised

Theoretically saying that someone could resubmit asking for remedies against the environmental act or heritage act

Very good post.............one small correction......

She.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

The government did their homework in gaming the system. It doesn't mean what they are doing isn't wrong, but they have least covered their arses in the legal sense here..

...there is also the fact they don't really care if they're wrong in any other sense. Rather, the they can do it and with impunity currently. /bleh

 

[generalcanada]

The government did their homework in gaming the system. It doesn't mean what they are doing isn't wrong, but they have least covered their arses in the legal sense here..

...there is also the fact they don't really care if they're wrong in any other sense. Rather, the they can do it and with impunity currently. /bleh

You call it gaming the system I call it bad lawyering. Find anyone who is directly impacted by the loss of the tress. someone who testifies that they would be directly harmed by the removal of the trees. Its really not that hard thousands would put their hand up. Im serious, I would LOL
File a lawsuit on behalf of them. you might actually win

However, those affidavits contain no information about who the applicant is, whether it is a legal entity, what its purposes are, or why it is in a position to launch this application. The applicant was identified as a legal entity for the first time in an affidavit in support of the applicant’s costs submissions, rather than on the merits, sworn the day before the hearing


[19] There is insufficient evidence in the record about the applicant to determine whether it has a genuine interest in the matter. The applicant asks the court to presume that it does, given the support it was able to garner in its affidavit materials. This is insufficient to meet the first branch of the test. However, even if I presume that this branch of the test is met, and further find that the matter before the court is justiciable, the applicant falters on the third branch of the test. This challenge would better be brought to court by a party that wishes to assert a cause of action that is extinguished by s. 17(2). This would enable the court to analyse the provision’s impact within a proper factual matrix. It would provide the court with contending points of view of those most directly affected. The paucity of facts adversely affects the level of analysis the court is able to undertake, as I explain more fully below

Like c'mon Standing is the 1st term you learn in law school. what's funnier is that I'm not a lawyer, even I read this in a "how are you this bad" LOL

note that 17.2 being the "were immune" clause


Actually I dont think they can "cover their ass" He makes it clear that they litterally could refile under one of those clauses covered and more importantly can find remedies

[42] Such provisions do not per se improperly violate s. 96. Perhaps there are circumstances in which such a provision goes too far. However, no such circumstance is apparent in this application. At this stage, the applicant, who seeks to bring no action that is prohibited by s. 17(2), asks the court to declare theoretically in a vacuum that s. 17(2) goes too far. I find no basis for doing so on the record before me.

Again, cmon bad lawyering. Now to be fair, because of court costs, the only way to challenge this law is to pool money together which makes it harder to say "im affected" but still. Hes litterally painting a target and saying do this you idiots!

 

[generalcanada]

in other news, because of the delay of the MGT trail construction apperently a deal was reached to double the detour width to 3m.

Ill check it out tomorrow, but this sounds much better than what was set for almost 7 months now

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Er...it's good lawyering. The government got what they wanted for the most part.