William Middleton

The claimant in an expropriation proceeding brought a motion for the production of documents referenced in an expert report delivered by the respondent.

The respondent had refused to produce certain construction contracts and subsequent agreements related to a comparable development project.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents, finding that they were implicitly referred to and relied upon by the expert, and were relevant to the feasibility of the claimant's proposed development.

The claimant brought a motion seeking compliance by the respondent with undertakings and follow-up questions arising from an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation claim.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to properly answer several follow-up questions and improperly refused to answer others on the basis of commercial sensitivity or solicitor-client privilege without proper grounds.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the required answers and documentation, and permitted the claimant to conduct an additional oral or written examination.

The claimant brought a motion for directions seeking compliance with undertakings from an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation claim.

The sole issue was whether a confidential memorandum co-authored by the respondent's Chief Legal Officer was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal reviewed the document and found it contained business advice and recommendations regarding the expropriation, rather than legal advice.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce a full, unredacted copy of the document, noting that a document is not privileged merely because it is co-authored by a senior legal officer acting in a management capacity.

The claimant and respondent requested an amendment to the procedural timelines contained in a prior Procedural Order leading up to a hearing for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent and ordered the amended dates for the exchange of appraisal reports, completion of oral discoveries, exchange of witness lists, and other pre-hearing steps.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on August 11, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 50-storey residential building containing 620 units.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements and expert reports.

The claimant, originally Envirosystems Incorporated, amalgamated to become GFL Environmental Services Inc. On consent of the parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the expropriation compensation proceeding continue under the new corporate name.

The Vice-Chair also seized himself of ongoing case management.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 69-storey residential building.

Following a case management conference, a nearby resident was granted participant status, and his condominium corporation (MTCC 780) was advised to proceed quickly if it also sought participant status.

MTCC 780 subsequently delayed its request and submitted written submissions after the deadline.

The Tribunal denied MTCC 780's request for participant status due to inordinate and unexplained delay, but ordered that its written submissions remain in the case file for the presiding member at the settlement hearing to consider.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued procedural directions.

The parties advised that the estimated hearing length could be reduced from 40 to 29 days.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file written submissions on their preferred mode of hearing and set a deadline for any motions to limit or exclude evidence.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on June 9, 2025, and end on July 18, 2025.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 69-storey residential building.

Following a case management conference, a nearby condominium corporation (MTCC 780) sought participant status and delivered written submissions after the deadline, despite prior knowledge of the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request for participant status due to inordinate and unexplained delay.

The Tribunal ordered that the written submissions remain in the case file, with the presiding member at the upcoming settlement hearing to determine what consideration, if any, they should be given.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 69-storey residential building.

Following a case management conference, a procedural order was issued.

The parties subsequently submitted a consent request to amend the procedural timelines leading up to the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the deadlines for the meeting of like experts, the statement of agreed facts and issues, and the exchange of witness statements.

The claimant filed a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act against the City of Toronto.

The parties subsequently agreed to dismiss the matter on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the matter dismissed on a without costs basis.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural order dates for a zoning by-law amendment appeal regarding a proposed 6-storey mixed-use building in Brantford.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for exchanging witness statements, challenging expert witnesses, and expert witness meetings.

The parties submitted a draft procedural order on consent regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal considered and revised the terms, issuing the procedural order to govern the pre-hearing steps and scheduling a 25-day in-person hearing to commence on March 2, 2026.

The claimant brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of lands in the City of Vaughan.

Prior to the scheduled 9-day hearing, the parties reached a full and final settlement.

On consent, the Ontario Land Tribunal cancelled the hearing and ordered the dismissal of all claims.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation following an expropriation by Metrolinx.

The parties agreed to a Procedural Order and requested a 15-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for October 2025 and issued the Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the proceeding.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a consent application to sever a parcel into four residential lots.

The City did not participate in the appeal, but a City planner testified under summons that the application was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted planning evidence, allowed the appeal, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant's request for costs against the City was denied, as the Committee's decision alone did not constitute unreasonable conduct.

The claimant brought a motion to compel the respondent to adhere to the Procedural Order and to amend the hearing date due to the respondent's delay in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The respondent did not file responding materials and agreed to the requested relief, except for mandatory mediation.

The Tribunal vacated the original hearing date, scheduled a new five-day hearing for June 2025, and issued an amended Procedural Order.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation but forwarded the claimant's request to the OLT Mediation group.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision to permit two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the subdivision appeal was withdrawn.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of specified conditions, including wind safety mitigation and a parking agreement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated April 16, 2024.

The amendment corrected the municipality name in the Title of Proceedings and paragraph 1 from Brampton to Caledon.

In all other respects, the original decision remained the same.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in a previous decision regarding an expropriation by the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The amendments corrected the Title of Proceedings to include all claimants and accurately reflect the municipality as Caledon, and revised paragraph 1 to clarify that the proceeding was the first Case Management Conference for the property.