William Middleton

The City of Windsor sought to expropriate lands owned by the property owners to consolidate them with an adjacent parcel acquired by the City due to tax arrears, in order to resolve an encroachment issue and facilitate future development.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, noting that the owners offered no evidence to contradict the City's stated intentions and that the case law relied upon by the owners was distinguishable.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation by the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The parties requested to schedule a hearing date and finalize a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing commencing March 31, 2025, and issued the requested Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the case.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation by the respondent municipality of a property owned by the claimants.

The parties expected to have settlement discussions and potentially request mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing commencing April 8, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the case.

A case management conference was held regarding an expropriation claim by Atlantic Packaging Holdings Ltd. against Metrolinx.

The claimant accepted a section 25 offer without prejudice but had not yet received payment.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft procedural order and identify hearing dates, and noted the possibility of mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The parties reported progress in settlement negotiations and indicated a likelihood of undertaking mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and directed the parties to advise if they wish to utilize the Tribunal's mediation facilities.

Metrolinx brought motions to dismiss the claimants' proceedings for the determination of costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, arguing that the Ontario Land Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess costs and was required to refer the matter to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to determine costs.

The Tribunal held that its authority is not limited by any distinction between 'fixing' and 'assessing' costs, nor can a private settlement agreement oust its statutory jurisdiction.

Metrolinx brought motions to dismiss the claimants' proceedings for the determination of costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, arguing that the Ontario Land Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess costs directly and was required to refer the matter to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to determine costs.

The Tribunal held that its discretion to refer a costs matter to an assessment officer does not fetter its authority to adjudicate costs itself, and that a private settlement agreement cannot oust the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction.

Metrolinx brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario Land Tribunal to determine costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, arguing the matter must be referred to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to adjudicate costs disputes.

The Tribunal held that it is not bound by private settlement agreements to refer costs to an assessment officer and that determining costs internally is fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective.

Metrolinx brought motions to dismiss proceedings commenced by the claimants to have the Ontario Land Tribunal determine their costs entitlement under section 32 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess costs and could only fix them, asserting that the matter must be referred to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to determine costs.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between fixing and assessing costs does not limit its jurisdiction, and it is not bound by private settlement agreements to refer costs to an assessment officer.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a status conference to schedule a land compensation arbitration.

The parties consented to a 10-day hearing commencing December 2, 2024.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the conduct of the proceeding, including deadlines for expert reports, witness statements, and a joint document book.

The moving party (developer) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by a neighbourhood association against a heritage designation by-law.

The neighbourhood association had actively supported and sponsored the heritage designation process but filed an appeal on the last possible day, which had the effect of delaying a scheduled hearing on a settlement regarding the developer's planning applications.

The Tribunal found that the neighbourhood association had ample opportunity to raise concerns during the by-law process but failed to do so.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious under s. 29(16) of the Ontario Heritage Act and dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to a revised hearing date of October 28, 2024, and submitted a proposed revised Procedural Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appended Procedural Order govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amended procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 15-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2024, regarding appeals by The Elia Corporation concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments and a proposed plan of subdivision in the City of Mississauga.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent landowner, 115 Saulter South LP.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to Hydro One Networks Inc. and Tepfam Holdings Inc., with leave to renew requests for party status at the next conference.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The parties previously settled an expropriation claim, with the respondent agreeing to pay the claimant's reasonable costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act.

The claimant subsequently failed to respond to communications regarding the resolution of costs and did not appear at the scheduled case management conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference and noted that the respondent could bring a written motion if it wished to seek an order directing payment of costs directly to the claimant's law firms and experts.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for injurious affection resulting from the construction of municipal sewage works encroaching on the claimant's property.

The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver fresh pleadings and issued a Procedural Order setting a six-day hearing to commence in September 2024.

The Appellants brought a motion seeking a declaration that their appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Township of Seguin was valid.

The Appellants argued they did not receive notice of the public meeting and therefore could not make submissions, requesting the Tribunal use its discretion to allow the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act strictly limits appeal rights to those who made oral or written submissions before the by-law was passed, and the Tribunal has no discretion to override this statutory requirement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation arising from the expropriation of property by Metrolinx.

The Tribunal scheduled a 13-day video hearing to commence in October 2024 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceeding.

The claimant brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx.

A case management conference was held to schedule the hearing and establish a procedural order.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day video hearing to commence in September 2024 and issued the procedural order on consent of the parties.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a residential development consisting of two towers.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a revised development with reduced tower heights and a shared podium.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendments in principle, but withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several technical conditions.