The Meaford Independent learned Wednesday that the appeal in the Georgian Beach Road lawsuit has been delayed, and that the municipality has retained additional legal services from Toronto-based law firm Aird & Berlis.
The municipality through their lawyers are seeking an extension until January 20 in order to allow enough time to submit their documentation supporting the appeal. One extension had previously been granted giving Meaford until December 20 to submit the documents.
Contacted by phone, Meaford CAO Frank Miele confirmed that a request for an extension had been made.
“That's what we are asking for, that's the date that the lawyers are asking for. With the Christmas holidays and everything else,” Miele said, the extra time would be helpful.
Miele also confirmed that additional lawyers have been enlisted by the municipality as they work toward appealing the ruling of Ontario Superior Court Justice Daley which was issued on September 21.
“Our existing lawyers will work in collaboration with Aird & Berlis in Toronto. John Mascarin in particular, and Timothy Hill. Those two lawyers will be on top of this case,” explained Miele.
According to the website for Aird & Berlis, John Mascairn specializes “in the areas of local government and municipal law, development, land use and planning law, and building and construction regulation,” while Timothy Hill's “wide-ranging civil litigation practice has included general commercial litigation, corporate proceedings and shareholder disputes, extensive municipal-related litigation, and all manner of real estate disputes.”
In his September 21 ruling, Justice Daley dismissed the lawsuit that Meaford had filed against several property owners along Georgian Beach Road in which Meaford claimed that an 1854 bylaw proved the existence of a disputed road allowance along the water side of the properties in question.
Justice Daley said that the 1854 bylaw is not sufficient proof that a road existed.
“There is no evidence that the purported public road was created by any of the means listed in s.26 of the Municipal Act, 2001. In particular, even if a public road or highway had been lawfully established, whether by dedication and acceptance or otherwise, the evidence is clear that the road ceased to exist after it was washed out in 1986 particularly in the location of the properties belonging to the Grist and Seaman et al. Defendants,” wrote Justice Daley.
On October 20, the municipality announced that they would appeal the ruling.
“The Municipality of Meaford Council has had the opportunity of reading the entirety of the decision with the input of counsel and staff. After much deliberation, the Municipality of Meaford Council has decided to file an appeal to the Municipality of Meaford v. Grist, et al Summary Judgment Motion of Justice Daley issued September 21, 2011,” reported the Municipality of Meaford in a press release..
The municipality published their full notice of appeal on their website. You can view the notice of appeal by clicking here.
“The Municipality of Meaford Council has had several legal opinions regarding the Summary Judgement Motion and believes there appears to be errors in the judgement that are arguable. Council has directed staff and counsel to file a Notice of Appeal for this Friday, October 21 at which point the matter will be before the Court of Appeal,” read the media release.
Miele told The Independent that a closed session of council would be held on Monday December 12 in order to bring members of council up to date.
“We're actually meeting with council in closed session on Monday to update council on these matters. More particularly our lawyers will be on conference call to talk to members of council on the elements associated. It's very technical, this matter, and council needs to be fully informed, and fully aware of all of the issues relating to the full submission.”
