Town pursues counterclaim against Maple Lane

But lawsuit should have no effect on current homeowners, stresses Reynar
By Chris Simon Innisfil Scope January 19 2011
A court battle between Maple Lane Developments and the Town of Innisfil probably won’t effect homeowners in any of the developer’s subdivisions, according to town clerk Jason Reynar.
Maple Lane has formally launched a lawsuit against the town and its hired consultant, Ainley and Associates, regarding the first and second phases of the Wallace Mills subdivision. Maple Lane is seeking $10 million from both the town and Ainley, and has accused the municipality of breach of contract, negligence and acting in bad faith. Ainley has been accused of negligence. The dispute stems from issues with sump pump discharge connections between 2004 and 2010, according to documents filed in a Toronto courthouse.
Although the legal battle is just beginning, it will likely leave out Maple Lane homeowners, said Reynar.
“The litigation will take some time to run its course, I don’t expect it will have any impact on the homeowners in Maple Lanes subdivisions,” said town clerk Jason Reynar.
Recently, town council officially granted permission for lawyers to defend the municipality’s interests in the matter, and file a $1 million counterclaim.
“We can’t talk about a legal matter (in public),” said mayor Barb Baguley.
Maple Lane accuses the town of requiring 55 homes to be connected the municipality’s storm sewer system, and classifying the project as correcting a ‘deficiency’ in the subdivision design, rather than ‘additional work’. That difference in terminology has financial implications, and cost the developer money.
Approval process delays related to the dispute have also cost the developer 16 house sales, and millions of dollars in damages and lost property investments, said Maple Lane lawyer Michael Melling.
“Maple Lane was treated differently by the town, including council, since the sump pump ‘deficiency’ issue arose,” he said. “Approvals for other parts of the Wallace Mills project were denied, deferred or postponed without justification. Maple Lane was inappropriately branded as a ‘bad developer’.”
However, the town has suggested the developer violated aspects of its subdivision agreement. The counterclaim will attempt to recover costs related to overdue security payments, and the refusal to pay for necessary stormwater management and sewer infrastructure.
Maple Lane also owes the town money for a pedestrian barricade, winter maintenance costs, regrading and curb, asphalt and manhole repair and completion, says the municipality’s lawyer, Charles Loopstra.
“Maple Lane failed to comply with town directives, or comply within a timely manner, with respect to the deficiencies in the works,” he said. “Furthermore, Maple Lane has failed to rectify all outstanding deficiencies and pay accounts … as required by the subdivision agreement.”