Photo of John Polyzogopoulos

John Polyzogopoulos

Subscribe to John Polyzogopoulos's Posts

John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with over two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, partnership, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles complex estates and matrimonial litigation involving disputes over property and businesses, as well as professional discipline and professional negligence matters for various types of professionals. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and also advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.

Follow:Read more about John PolyzogopoulosJohn's Linkedin ProfileJohn's Twitter Profile
Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Short Civil Decisions | Criminal Decisions | Ontario Review Board

Good day,

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court released two decisions concerning the fight over the proposed destruction and redevelopment of Glen Abbey Golf Club. In 2018, the Town voted unanimously to reject Clublink’s demolition application for planning and heritage reasons. Clublink attempted to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), but the Town argued that it could not because the Town had designated the property as a heritage site. Clublink then obtained a decision from the Superior Court of Justice that it had a right to take its demolition application to LPAT. The Town appealed. In Oakville (Town) v Clublink, the Court ruled that the golf course is a “structure” pursuant to s. 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, meaning that Clublink can appeal its rejected demolition permit to LPAT and the Town is bound by LPAT’s decision. The Town unsuccessfully argued that s. 33 of the OHA applies instead of s. 34, requiring the Conservation Review Board to hold a hearing and produce a report as to whether or not the application should be approved, and the Board’s report is not binding on the Town.Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (OCTOBER 21 – OCTOBER 25 2019)