Brennyn Watterton

The appellant municipality appealed a Divisional Court order that quashed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision assuming jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a municipal servicing agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, as it only assumed jurisdiction on a prima facie basis and deferred the final determination of forum to the Superior Court.

Because the Ontario Land Tribunal Act only permits appeals of final decisions, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was restored.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

At a case management conference, the parties agreed to hold the applicant's application for judicial review in abeyance pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on a request for reconsideration under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The court endorsed the agreement, setting a timetable for the filing of amended notices and application records following the release of the Tribunal's decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought to schedule a motion for leave to appeal and an application for judicial review from a summary dismissal by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The applicant requested that the leave motion, appeal, and judicial review be heard together by a single panel, relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar.

The court ordered that the motion for leave to appeal be heard first by a single judge, to respect the legislative deference implicit in the leave requirement, with the judicial review and potential appeal to follow if leave is granted.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns about its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory tribunal order.

Applying established case law, the court confirmed that absent clear statutory language, there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory tribunal decision under either the Ontario Land Tribunal Act or the Expropriations Act.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it was doomed to fail for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a review decision of the Chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal, which had set aside a previous tribunal decision and ordered a rehearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment that restricted cannabis and hemp cultivation.

The moving party argued the Chair breached procedural fairness by failing to provide notice or an opportunity to respond, and by raising a new ground of review.

The Divisional Court found that the review decision was a final order, not interlocutory, but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The Court held that the Chair followed the established rules, the moving party had actual notice but chose not to respond, and the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to merit an appeal.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal asserting jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a water and sewage servicing agreement with the respondent municipality.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the agreement's termination clause by failing to apply a pragmatic and common-sense approach and by considering subsequent conduct without finding ambiguity.

Because the agreement had validly terminated, the statutory basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Municipal Act was removed.

The appeal was granted and the Tribunal's order was quashed.