Brynn Leger

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a kennel as a home industry in an existing agricultural barn to house 13 personal dogs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed use was generally consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement as an 'other rural land use', it did not conform to the County Official Plan due to the barn's proximity to a neighbouring residence and the potential for adverse noise impacts.

Furthermore, the proposal was not consistent with the intent of the Township's Zoning By-law, which explicitly prohibits kennels and defines them as commercial enterprises.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for a land compensation arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The order establishes deadlines for pleadings, discoveries, witness statements, and expert reports, and schedules a 10-day video hearing to commence on January 19, 2026.

The parties consented to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List regarding an expropriation and land compensation claim for the South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions treatment plant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act related to the construction of the Toronto York Spadina Subway extension.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were advanced and requested a third CMC be scheduled pending finalization.

The Tribunal directed a third CMC to be held on November 14, 2024, and requested the claims be withdrawn if a full settlement is reached prior.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for lands expropriated by the respondent school board to develop a school site.

The claimants seek compensation for market value, injurious affection, and disturbance damages.

The Tribunal approved the parties' consent Procedural Order, noted their intention to engage in mediation, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of lands in Toronto.

The parties agreed on a four-day hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing for April 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding three related claims for compensation arising from expropriations by the City of Toronto for the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension.

The Tribunal ordered that the three claims be heard together due to their similar issues.

At the request of the parties, who were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and put the procedural order and issues list on hold.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision application within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for April 2, 2024, following a planned mediation session.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The order sets out the schedule for discoveries, expert reports, and the video hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation following an expropriation by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on January 13, 2025, and issued a procedural order governing the conduct of the proceeding.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding four claims for compensation following expropriations by the respondent for a transit project.

Three of the claims were settled, leaving only one claimant's claim in dispute.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal amended the procedural order to extend the deadline for filing an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from a permanent easement expropriated by Metrolinx.

The parties agreed to a five-day hearing on the merits and subsequently submitted a consent Procedural Order, Issues List, and Order of Evidence.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and issued the Procedural Order to govern the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for a compensation hearing under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing April 7, 2025.

The order sets out deadlines for documentary discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The claimant, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, brought a motion seeking a confidentiality clause in a Procedural Order to protect sensitive commercial and financial data related to its $2,000,000 business loss claim arising from an expropriation.

The claimant argued that disclosure of this information could be used by competitors to its detriment.

The respondent, York Region, opposed the motion, arguing that the requested order was overly broad, would interfere with solicitor-client communications, and was unnecessary given the deemed undertaking rule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the request too onerous and unsubstantiated at this preliminary stage, noting that the claimant failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the pre-emptory confidentiality order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation arising from Metrolinx's expropriation of a temporary easement over the claimants' property for the GO Expansion Project.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, setting out the issues list, order of evidence, and scheduling a three-day video hearing on the merits for June 2024.

The claimant brought a motion for a procedural order and a confidentiality order in an expropriation compensation claim arising from a road widening.

The respondent sought an adjournment, arguing that Metrolinx, the purported ultimate beneficiary of the taking, should be given the opportunity to seek participant status.

The Tribunal expressed concern about adding participants to land compensation matters but granted an adjournment, directing the respondent to file responding materials clarifying Metrolinx's liability and setting a schedule for the continuation of the motion.

The claimants and respondent submitted a request on consent for a procedural order to govern the proceedings for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the requested procedural order, setting out the schedule for pleadings, discoveries, mediation, expert meetings, and the hearing dates.

Metrolinx applied for a warrant to take possession of expropriated lands, while the respondent landlords and tenants applied to postpone possession, arguing Metrolinx failed to make a valid, good-faith offer of compensation under s. 25 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx had offered $1.00 due to alleged environmental contamination but refused to answer questions or provide environmental reports during examinations.

The respondents sought an adjournment to bring a refusals motion before a Master.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the respondents had a reasonable basis to test whether Metrolinx's offer was made in good faith.

The appellant lawyer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him professionally negligent in his representation of the respondent in a condominium application.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in statutory interpretation, failed to draw adverse inferences from uncalled witnesses, and failed to consider mitigation and apportionment of liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The court also awarded costs to the successful respondent, who was represented by pro bono counsel, on the condition that the respondent provide a written direction that the costs be paid directly to the law firm.