Alexander Ross McPherson

The claimant commenced a proceeding under section 26 of the Expropriations Act for compensation arising from the expropriation of parts of their lands by the Regional Municipality of Durham.

A Case Management Conference was held to schedule a hearing and issue a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing to commence on May 5, 2027, and issued a Procedural Order governing the future conduct of the proceeding, including mediation and the exchange of expert appraisal reports.

The parties submitted a request on consent to amend the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order for a hearing to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended procedural order governing the steps leading up to the hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a site-specific Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham and Participant status to a local resident on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The expropriating authority sought to expropriate portions of the owners' land to widen and upgrade a regional road, improving safety and stormwater management.

The owners requested a hearing of necessity but failed to appear.

The tribunal proceeded in their absence and heard engineering evidence from the expropriating authority demonstrating that the road location and design required the taking.

The tribunal concluded that the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the authority's objectives, finding the taking reasonably defensible.

The applicant, a person with disabilities, had used specialized transit services unconditionally for 8 years.

The respondent reviewed his eligibility and changed it to conditional, requiring him to use conventional transit for part of his trip accompanied by a personal care assistant at his own expense.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court found the decision unreasonable as it erected a barrier rather than removing one, contrary to the purpose of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The decision was quashed and the applicant's unconditional eligibility was restored.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought approximately nine months with credit for time spent under house arrest.

The court considered the offender's youthful age, lack of prior record, history of childhood sexual abuse, and the significant mitigating effect of his strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent custody, which accounted for the mandatory minimum and pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day plus three years probation.

The defence sought approximately nine months with credit for nearly two years of house arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent imprisonment plus three years probation with conditions including counselling, community service, and compliance with sex offender registration requirements.

The court emphasized the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant mitigating factors including childhood sexual abuse and mental health issues, and low risk of reoffending, while balancing denunciation and general deterrence principles applicable to child pornography offences.