R.A. Beccarea

The applicants sought a determination of the value of their lands under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act to calculate the correct cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The applicants had paid $13,520,539.95 under protest and sought a refund based on a lower land valuation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' appraisers and economists, finding that a 12.5% downward adjustment for the COVID-19 pandemic and a 7.5% adjustment for view/shadow encumbrances were reasonable.

The Tribunal determined the market value of the lands to be $111,660,000 and ordered the City to refund $4,698,173.95 for the parkland payment, plus $9,686.08 for overcharged appraisal fees.

A telephone conference call was held to determine the status of a procedural order in a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

Counsel for the claimant failed to attend the hearing, as well as a previous hearing.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and returned the file to the Case Coordinator for further direction.

The appellants appealed the City of Brampton's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a 360-unit residential subdivision on a 19.99-hectare infill site.

The appellants, representing residents of surrounding upscale executive housing neighborhoods, argued the proposed inclusion of townhouses and smaller lots was incompatible with the area's character and would cause traffic congestion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the expert planning, urban design, and traffic evidence of the City and the developer.

The Tribunal found that the proposal represented a modernized form of executive housing that complied with provincial intensification policies while remaining compatible with the existing communities.

The claimant brought a motion to compel compliance with a procedural order and to amend timelines in a land compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act.

At the opening of the motion hearing, the parties advised the tribunal that they had agreed to proceed to private mediation and requested that the motion and procedural order timelines be stayed.

The tribunal ordered that the current procedural order remain in place with suspended timelines, held the motion in abeyance, and directed the parties to schedule a further conference after the mediation.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference to finalize a procedural order for a hearing to determine the claimant's cost claim following an expropriation.

The parties disagreed on the timeline for the respondent to provide its response to the claimant's bill of costs.

The Tribunal noted that referring the matter to an assessment officer was impractical due to closures and delays, and ordered that the costs be fixed by the Tribunal under section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for April 2022 and appended a procedural order reflecting the necessary timelines.

The claimant brought a land compensation claim against the respondent under the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to an order dismissing the matter without costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the consent order dismissing the claim.

The claimants and respondent consented to refer the determination of the amount of costs to an assessment officer pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal ordered the referral accordingly.

The claimants and respondent consented to an order referring the determination of costs to an assessment officer.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal granted the request pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The parties settled a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, leaving only the assessment of the claimant's costs outstanding.

The claimant requested a Case Management Conference to schedule a hearing on costs.

The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to fix costs under s. 32 of the Act and directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and attend a further Case Management Conference to set hearing dates.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit three detached dwellings.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned a previously scheduled hearing and issued a revised procedural order.

The Tribunal ordered that a two-day video hearing be rescheduled to commence on October 14, 2021.

The claimant brought a motion to compel the respondent to provide answers to questions and produce documents refused at an examination for discovery.

At the commencement of the hearing, the claimant requested an adjournment sine die, indicating that a settlement was expected within a month.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the parties to provide a status update in one month, while maintaining the previously scheduled hearing dates.

The claimant brought a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

At the sixth Case Management Conference, the respondent requested a three-month adjournment to retain an outside planner and respond to the claimant's expert reports, which contained unexpected allegations and a higher injurious affection claim.

The claimant requested that any further hearing be peremptory.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a seventh, peremptory Case Management Conference.