Ontario Construction News staff writer
A group opposed to the location of a new regional hospital to be built in Windsor has lost another court challenge and been ordered to pay $27,500 to the City of Windsor and Windsor Regional Hospital legal for legal bills.
This latest challenge was an application to extend the time limit for seeking a three-judge review of last yearโs decision by Ontario Divisional Court Justice Gregory J. Verbeem denying leave to appeal a 2019 ruling by the provinceโs Local Planning Appeal Tribunal against CAMPP (Citizens for an Accountable Megahospital Planning Process).
โThere comes a time when a litigation cause has been lost. It is over,โ Justice D.L. Corbett said in a Divisional Court decision, dismissing the attempt by Citizens for an Accountable) Megahospital Planning Process CAMPP to stop the hospital from being built on the selected site.
โThis motion is an attempt to continue or re-open litigation that is concluded.โ
The site of the proposed regional mega hospital is at County Road 42 and the 9th concession.
City and hospital officials say it is time to stop the legal battles, move on and get the hospital built.
According to a news release after the court ruling, the City of Windsor is looking forward to the next stage of the process to bring a $2-billion, state-of-the-art acute care hospital to the region, noting that this is the third time CAMPP has lost in court.
โThereโs been a great deal of taxpayer dollars spent on litigating what is for most a fantastic once-in-a-lifetime project for our entire region, so I truly hope this is the end of the challenges,โ said Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens. โWe need this hospital; we have an excellent site for this hospital; and we have the support of the provincial government and the residents of Windsor-Essex to move forward.โ
The new hospital will be built on County Road 42 near Windsor airport.
The decision last year that denied CAMPP leave to appeal canโt be further appealed. So what CAMPP was hoping to challenge decisions made during the hearing, such as refusing to hear โfresh evidenceโ on the implications of COVID-19. New evidence is normally not allowed when a party seeks leave to appeal and the ruling said there is โno apparent meritโ in CAMPPโs arguments for a review.
โThe request to adduce โfresh evidenceโ respecting COVID-19 bordered on the absurd,โ the justice said, adding that โno basis was provided to suggest that general principles of public health were not taken into account in siting the new hospital.โ