So the gloves come off. The County of Northumberland is taking the Town of Cobourg to court, and asking for a judicial review of the controlling bylaw for 310 Division St. over the objections of the Mayor of Cobourg and 99% of the outraged Citizens on the “Cobourg Blog”.

This was noted as ‘could happen’ in a post dated November 29 click here to read it and it has now come to pass. How it will end is anybody’s guess.

I have been told that the Town found out Thursday evening and it was confirmed at a Special Meeting on Friday 23rd May. What the Town’s response will be is unknown as the strategies will have been held in closed session at that Special Meeting.

So what is Judicial Review (JR) as opposed to two sides asking a Judge for a decision?

This has been lifted from the Internet (KEN WISE AND ASSOCIATES) and states very clearly what JR is:

Judicial Review: A Guide to Understanding the Process

What is Judicial Review? Judicial review is the legal process where a court evaluates the lawfulness of decisions made by government bodies, tribunals, or public authorities. It ensures that the decisions comply with legal principles and respect fairness. Unlike an appeal, judicial review does not revisit the facts but checks whether the decision-maker acted within their authority and followed correct procedures.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

1. 1. Illegality: The decision-maker may have acted outside their powers. For example, if a tribunal made a ruling on a matter it had no legal authority to decide, that decision could be overturned for being illegal. This was evident in the case of Turkiewicz v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, where the court quashed decisions because they were based on an improper interpretation of the Labour Relations Act​.
   2. Procedural Fairness: Every party must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. This includes providing proper notice of hearings, the opportunity to respond to evidence, and a decision made by an unbiased body. Procedural fairness failures often result in a decision being quashed. For instance, in Michalski v. McMaster University  students argued that their requests for COVID-19 vaccine exemptions were not handled fairly.
   3. Unreasonableness: A decision may be set aside if it is so unreasonable that no properly informed decision-maker could have arrived at the same conclusion. In the landmark case of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, the Supreme Court set the standard of review for determining the reasonableness of a decision​(2023fca214).
   4. Error of Law: The court may intervene if the decision-maker misapplies the law or legal principles. This can include applying incorrect statutory interpretations or legal doctrines. For example, in Heiltsuk Horizon Maritime Services Ltd. v. Atlantic Towing Ltd., judicial review was granted due to misinterpretation of bid evaluation requirements during a procurement process.

Of course each of us has an opinion about this and it will depend on what one thinks of the rushed and hasty review and application of the bylaw, by the Town as they drafted and implemented the Bylaw,  as well the content of the Bylaw regarding reasonableness and illegality as defined by the definition of JR.

Whatever the outcome as many point out this is a total waste of Citizens’ money, surely somebody could bang heads but with the total disdain that the Mayor of Cobourg has for the County level of government and the people involved don’t expect anything other than malevolence from his colleagues who have total antipathy to him. As usual this event may just demonstrate how much political decisions are made on personal feelings.

The problem here is that the matter of the Bylaw will take second place to the outrage demonstrated by the aggrieved Citizens of Cobourg that want to see 310 Division St. closed own by any means possible. “How dare the County do this?” is the sentiment articulated so far, by those folks.

Interesting times indeed!