10 total
Further Case Management Conference scheduled and hearing dates released pending issuance of conservation permit.
The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's failure to make a decision regarding a conservation permit application.
At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the Niagara Escarpment Commission had issued a required development permit and the Conservation Authority had agreed to issue the conservation permit.
The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow time for the permit to be issued and conditions reviewed, and released the previously scheduled merit hearing dates.
Merit hearing for development permit appeal adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the conservation authority's refusal of a development permit application for a six-storey residential building.
The parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing as they were still working on documents and technical studies.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment request and ordered the merit hearing adjourned sine die, with a written update required by January 30, 2026.
Further case management conference scheduled pending decision from the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's failure to make a decision on a conservation permit application within 120 days.
At a case management conference, the parties advised that the conservation authority was awaiting a decision from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which was expected by late October 2025.
The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference for November 2025 to allow the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list or combine the matter with any subsequent appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision.
Application for accident benefits dismissed after applicant failed to file submissions or evidence.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The matter proceeded to a written hearing.
The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.
As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the benefits and removal from the MIG, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Ontario Land Tribunal schedules second Case Management Conference in development permit appeal.
The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal of a development permit application for a six-storey residential building in a regulated area of Spencer Creek.
At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance.
Tribunal schedules further case management conference and merit hearing for conservation permit non-decision appeal.
The appellant appealed the respondent's failure to make a decision on a conservation permit application within 120 days.
At a case management conference, the parties requested scheduling a further conference to await a pending decision from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and to schedule an eight-day merit hearing.
The Tribunal granted the requests, scheduling a further case management conference for August 2025 and a merit hearing for February 2026.
Tribunal releases hearing dates and schedules further CMC following withdrawal of Conservation Authorities Act appeal.
A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Ontari Holdings Ltd. concerning a proposed business park development.
The appellant withdrew its appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act, intending to file a new application under the amended Act.
The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals for the remaining Subdivision Appeal.
On consent of the parties, the Tribunal released the previously scheduled 15-day hearing dates for February 2025 and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for March 2025 to await the outcome of the new application.
The court approved a cy-près class action settlement and class counsel fees regarding municipal flood risks.
The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.
The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.
The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.
The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.
Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.
The court dismissed an appeal to produce unredacted medical records, upholding redactions to protect third parties from stigma.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision that declined to order the production of unredacted medical records.
The underlying action involves a personal injury claim where the plaintiff experienced a psychotic episode, and their medical records contained delusions about third parties.
The respondents had redacted these specific details from the records.
The appeal court upheld the associate judge's decision, finding that the redacted content was irrelevant to the diagnosis or severity of the psychotic episode and that there was a valid reason (protection of innocent third parties, including a minor, from stigma) for the non-disclosure.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
The court dismissed a motion to compel an in-person psychiatric assessment, finding the defendant's existing paper review report sufficient.
The defendant Metrolinx brought a motion seeking an order to compel the injured plaintiff, J.E., to attend an in-person psychiatric assessment.
Metrolinx argued this was necessary to respond to evidence regarding J.E.'s psychiatric conditions, including a recent schizophrenia diagnosis.
The plaintiffs opposed, arguing their pleadings did not attribute the recent psychiatric conditions to the incident and that their expert, a neuropsychologist, could address the diagnoses.
The court dismissed Metrolinx's motion, finding that Metrolinx had not established the necessity of the in-person assessment to level the playing field, especially since their own psychiatrist had already provided a paper review report addressing causation.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff's pleadings did not allege the 2017 incident caused the 2023 psychiatric conditions and that the role of treating healthcare professionals as participant experts is limited by the court's gatekeeper function.
