Brendan O’Callaghan

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the proceeding regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling a five-day video hearing to commence on March 22, 2027, and setting out key procedural dates for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, and the exchange of witness statements.

The expropriating authority sought to expropriate temporary and permanent easements over the owners' properties to facilitate a road widening and bus rapid transit project.

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

The Tribunal found that the proposed permanent easement for a hydro pole and the temporary easements for construction access and grading were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the expropriating authority's objectives.

The Tribunal recommended that the temporary easements include a fixed expiry date and specific details regarding permitted uses to provide certainty to the owners.

The Tribunal also recommended that the expropriating authority pay $200 in costs to each of the participating owners.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Markham's new City-wide Parkland Conveyance By-law No. 2025-101.

The parties requested Tribunal-led mediation, which was subsequently assessed and confirmed.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for September 2026 to allow the mediation process to proceed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Ottawa's Development Charges By-law No. 2024-218 and related by-laws.

The parties advised they are seeking Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal directed that a second Case Management Conference be scheduled for October 7, 2026, to consider next steps, and noted the likelihood of additional appeals being filed regarding related by-laws expected in March 2026.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's development charge by-laws under section 14 of the Development Charges Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that the parties were seeking Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to advise of any settlement.

The claimant brought a motion seeking compliance by the respondent with undertakings and follow-up questions arising from an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation claim.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to properly answer several follow-up questions and improperly refused to answer others on the basis of commercial sensitivity or solicitor-client privilege without proper grounds.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the required answers and documentation, and permitted the claimant to conduct an additional oral or written examination.

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

The claimant brought a motion for directions seeking compliance with undertakings from an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation claim.

The sole issue was whether a confidential memorandum co-authored by the respondent's Chief Legal Officer was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal reviewed the document and found it contained business advice and recommendations regarding the expropriation, rather than legal advice.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce a full, unredacted copy of the document, noting that a document is not privileged merely because it is co-authored by a senior legal officer acting in a management capacity.

The Applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a draft Plan of Subdivision for 186 residential units.

The central issues were whether the proposed Low-Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment train was appropriate instead of a traditional stormwater management pond, and whether the proposed density and mix of dwellings conformed to the Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal found that the LID approach was appropriate, cost-effective, and aligned with provincial and municipal policies encouraging innovative stormwater solutions.

However, the Tribunal found that the proposed townhouses for certain blocks exceeded density caps and required back-to-back or rear lane typologies to conform.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the submission of revised plans and joint conditions of approval.

The applicant appealed under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act seeking a determination of the cash-in-lieu of parkland required for a proposed redevelopment.

At a case management conference, the parties requested late fall dates to allow for the exchange of reports and potential mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for November 2024 and issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation claim by Orlando Corporation against the Regional Municipality of York.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day video hearing on the merits for February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of a property in Toronto by Metrolinx.

The parties agreed to a four-week hearing on the merits and finalized a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled the 19-day video hearing to commence on February 3, 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

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 appellant appealed under subsections 42(10) and 42(12) of the Planning Act regarding the determination of the value of land for a development in Toronto.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The appellant subsequently confirmed the settlement was completed and withdrew the appeals.

The Tribunal closed its file and made no order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding an appeal by Caivan (Richmond South) Limited against the City of Ottawa for failing to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision.

The order sets the hearing dates, procedural steps, and the issues list for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision for 554 residential units within the prescribed timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent developer, Mattamy (Jock River) Limited.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a nine-day merit hearing to commence in October 2024.

The Tribunal considered a request for partial approval of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (OPA 79), which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

Following mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resulting in modifications to OPA 79.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 79 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and partially approved the modified OPA 79, while preserving the rights of the remaining appellants for a future merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's Parkland Dedication By-law.

The parties requested a five-day hearing as settlement discussions had not resolved the matter.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, with minor clarifications, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on July 22, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City's calculation of park levies for a residential development under the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties presented a draft Procedural Order and requested hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits and issued the Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing process.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Welland's Parkland Dedication By-law No. 2022-149.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, they jointly requested a second Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a second video hearing and directed the parties to either request a settlement hearing or submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to the next date.