Real Estate Law

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent and zoning by-law amendment application to create a new rural residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a revised wetland buffer and a reduced minimum distance separation setback from a nearby barn.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

The claimants commenced a proceeding under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation related to an expropriation for the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension.

The parties subsequently advised the Ontario Land Tribunal that they wished to dismiss the proceeding on consent without costs.

The Tribunal ordered the proceeding dismissed on a without costs basis.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for an upcoming hearing.

The underlying appeal concerns the refusal of a proposed plan of subdivision that would permit the conversion of 60 existing townhouses to condominium tenure in the City of North Bay.

The hearing is scheduled for three days commencing September 2, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised development of 104 stacked back-to-back townhouses, reduced from the originally proposed 15-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit residential and mixed-use developments with multiple towers.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan amendment and approving the Zoning By-law amendment in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of certain conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals of a proposed zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision in the Town of Mono.

The order schedules a 17-day virtual merits hearing to commence on September 21, 2026, and sets out the procedural dates and issues list for the hearing.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the case, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal with prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought an order requiring his neighbour to replace or modify an outdoor light fixture that shone into his unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the light's wattage had been reduced, the fixture's clear glass sides violated the condominium corporation's declaration requiring exterior lighting to be subtle and diffused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to modify or replace the fixture to comply with the declaration.

The applicant's request for costs was denied due to his harassing behaviour toward the respondent during the proceedings.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a tenant and his landlord for persistent noise nuisances and parking violations.

The tenant hosted loud parties late into the night and parked an oversize vehicle in the underground garage, later moving it to an accessible surface spot with an invalid permit.

Neither the tenant nor the landlord participated in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the tenant in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents.

The landlord was held jointly and severally liable for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure his tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to cease the violations and pay $6,767.70 in enforcement and legal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owner reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the respondent's tenant to vacate the unit by September 30, 2023, and to comply with the condominium's declaration and rules in the interim.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, with each party bearing their own costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a tenant and the non-resident unit owner for repeated breaches of rules regarding noise, smoking, garbage storage, pets, and parking.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the tenant in breach of the smoking, storage, pet, and parking rules, and ordered immediate compliance.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay damages for pre-litigation legal costs, and apportioned the costs of the Tribunal proceeding equally between the tenant and the unit owner, finding the owner had taken some reasonable steps but was ultimately responsible for her tenant's actions.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a prior settlement agreement, including failing to provide records and payment by the agreed deadlines, and breaching confidentiality.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the deadlines for providing records and payment, though these were rectified shortly after the application was filed.

The Tribunal found no breach of confidentiality and held it lacked jurisdiction to impose penalties or reimburse record fees that were resolved by the settlement.

The respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding nuisance concerns.

The case proceeded to mediation, where the parties worked together to address the issues.

The applicant was subsequently given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that elevator noise constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The parties agreed that the matter did not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a consent order dismissing the case on a without prejudice basis, leaving the issue of costs to be pursued in any further proceeding outside the Tribunal.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondents, who reside in the unit directly above, created unreasonable noise and vibration.

The applicant provided noise logs and audio recordings demonstrating a pattern of yelling, loud music, and heavy walking that interfered with their quiet enjoyment.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conduct violated section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The respondents were ordered to comply with the noise rules and to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant filed a case regarding a December 2022 request for condominium records.

The applicant subsequently made another request in June 2023 for the same types of records to update their currency, and brought a motion to include the June request in the current case.

The respondent did not make submissions on the motion.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion, finding that including both requests would allow for the most efficient process.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, filed an application regarding unreasonable noise and vibration from the gym located above their units.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute involved personal injury, repair of common elements, operational governance decisions, and noise from a different corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the core of the dispute was a noise nuisance complaint under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, which falls squarely within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to establish that the application was clearly outside its jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal that proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within the allotted 15-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a tribunal application because the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide Board Response Forms within 30 days of a records request.

During negotiations, the respondent provided the forms and offered to reimburse the $25 filing fee.

The applicant refused to settle, demanding an additional $7.10 for their proportionate share of the respondent's legal fees, and paid $50 to move the matter to mediation.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $25 filing fee but dismissed the applicant's claim for the $50 mediation fee and the $7.10.

The tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for $2,137.50 in legal fees, finding the amount disproportionate.

The court provided procedural directions concerning a motion by a former court‑appointed condominium administrator to pass its accounts following its discharge after condominium elections.

The directions set timelines for service of the motion record, notice to unit owners, and procedures for filing objections to the administrator’s accounts.

The court required any objector to serve and file a notice of objection by a specified deadline and set out the mandatory information that must be included in such notice.

The court also held that out‑of‑court cross‑examinations of the administrator would not be permitted, leaving any questioning of the administrator to the judge presiding over the hearing of the passing of accounts.