Andrea M. Hill

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence in April 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals and groups, deferred a party status request to allow the requester to seek counsel, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for May 29, 2025, to allow the parties to continue narrowing the issues for the procedural order.

The City of Toronto brought a motion seeking to confirm the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), approve proposed modifications, and adjourn remaining site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence that the modifications represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, confirmed the unappealed portions, and granted the requested adjournments on consent of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a 35-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Metrolinx, Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited, and a residents' association, and participant status to several individuals and groups.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2024, and a 15-day hearing was scheduled for November 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited, IPEX Inc., and Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited, noting they satisfied the legislative tests and were already parties to related Official Plan and Zoning By-law appeals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 3, 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 44-storey mixed-use building within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner, 1501786 Ontario Limited, who raised concerns regarding height, massing, and setbacks.

The applicant advised that the application was being revised and resubmitted to the City.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 35-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The appeal was brought due to the City's failure to make a decision within the legislated timeframe.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a ten-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in its previous decision dated April 28, 2022.

The amendments added Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited as a party and corrected the spelling of a counsel's name from Calvin Lance to Calvin Lantz.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), the appellant 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. brought a motion to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate land use designation for its lands.

The City opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction should be heard first.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's motion, finding it in the public interest to provisionally schedule the hearing pending the outcome of the City's jurisdictional motion, as doing so would offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing to address the remaining outstanding issues raised by a neighboring property owner and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to permit the modernization of an existing industrial operation and add residential and retail uses.

At a case management conference, two adjoining landowners and the school board requested party status, citing common issues related to a proposed road and the Golden Mile Secondary Plan.

As there was no opposition, the Tribunal granted party status to all three requesters and directed the parties to produce an issues list.

The applicants appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

During a status update hearing, the parties agreed to schedule a 14-day hearing on the merits.

The school board requested and was granted party status on consent to monitor the appeal and preserve its ability to work towards potentially building a new elementary school in the area.

The tribunal issued procedural directions and scheduled the hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 9-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted a request from a party to be removed from the proceedings.

On consent of the remaining parties, the Tribunal scheduled a 9-day video hearing to commence in January 2022 and provided directions for refinements to the draft Procedural Order.

Following a trial decision, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought $74,612.14 all-inclusive, relying in part on an offer to settle that triggered substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

One defendant conceded the entitlement to substantial indemnity costs from that date, while another provided no submissions on costs and a corporate defendant did not participate in the trial.

The court considered the conduct of the participating defendants, including late concessions that prolonged the trial and required unnecessary witnesses.

Balancing the relevant considerations, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at $65,000 all-inclusive against the individual defendants.

The plaintiff sought recovery of remediation costs paid to repair structural defects in a newly constructed home after the builder failed to fulfill warranty obligations.

The corporate builder and its principals had executed indemnification agreements requiring reimbursement of losses arising from warranty claims.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the indemnity cap for the individual defendants was $20,000 rather than $200,000.

The court held that limitation periods for indemnity claims run from the date the indemnifier actually pays out losses, not from when the underlying defect arises.

The action was therefore timely because the payments occurred in 2006 within two years of the claim issued in 2007.

The court further held the contract imposed an aggregate $200,000 indemnity cap for the individual defendants, not a per‑home limit.

Following the settlement of an application under the Substitute Decisions Act regarding the property and personal care of their mother, the parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs from the mother's assets, while the respondents sought costs from the applicant.

The court found that the applicant had acted unreasonably, commenced unnecessary litigation, and rejected reasonable settlement offers.

The court ordered the applicant to personally pay $40,000 in costs to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis, and limited the costs payable from the mother's assets to only those portions of the legal work that actually benefited her.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision directing the assessment of its legal accounts under the Solicitors Act, arguing the application judge erred in finding 'special circumstances' since the accounts were paid more than 12 months prior.

The respondents cross-appealed the denial of their costs for the application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the application judge's discretionary decisions on special circumstances and costs were entitled to deference and revealed no error in principle.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs payable by the appellant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,000.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims against her former solicitor and a charitable foundation regarding the transfer of her home with a retained life estate.

At trial, she argued non est factum and breach of fiduciary duty, both of which were dismissed based on credibility findings.

On appeal, she raised a new argument of solicitor negligence regarding ongoing property expenses, which the court declined to hear as it was not pleaded at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs, dismissing the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order granting a mistrial in a motor vehicle accident damages trial.

The trial judge ordered a mistrial after finding that the cumulative effect of inflammatory comments made by the appellants' trial counsel during closing arguments impaired trial fairness and could not be cured by a correcting instruction.

The trial judge also declined to decide the issue of damages herself, preserving the respondents' right to a jury trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's assessment of the impact of counsel's statements and her decision to order a mistrial.