Christopher J. Hunt

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of its applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density mixed-use development at 4875 Dundas Street West.

Following private mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 42-storey proposal containing 445 residential units, including 56 rental replacement units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft amendments in principle subject to the satisfaction of outstanding conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence in April 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 46-storey building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the parties had reached a settlement which was adopted by City Council.

The Tribunal scheduled a merit hearing in writing to consider the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a variance to permit a car rental agency in an Employment Industrial Zone.

The parties reached a settlement proposing conditions to prohibit the sale and lease of vehicles and reserve the majority of the gross floor area for non-retail uses.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the mitigated variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variance subject to the agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in a previous decision and order dated December 23, 2024.

The corrections included the spelling of counsel names and a site name.

The amendment was made pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The defendants, Lee Darvin Weinkauf and Merlie Otadora Weinkauf, brought a motion to set aside their noting in default and a default judgment obtained by RFA Bank of Canada in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court reviewed the chronology of the mortgage default, the parties' communications, and the applicable legal test for setting aside default judgments.

The court found that the defendants did not provide a plausible excuse for their failure to defend, nor did they establish an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Multiple parties appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 615, which implements the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan.

Prior to the hearing, the City and several appellants reached a settlement modifying the OPA to prioritize the public realm, encourage diverse land uses, and support higher-order transit.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 615 represents good land use planning and approved it in principle, save for several site-specific 'hived-off' appeals that will proceed separately.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, a former business owner, from competing with their vehicle leasing business and to compel the transfer of phone numbers and production of records, following a share purchase agreement.

The plaintiffs had ceased installment payments to the defendant, alleging misrepresentation and breach of restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the main injunction for non-competition, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, primarily because the restrictive covenants were not in force while the purchaser was in default of payment obligations.

The court also dismissed the requests for phone number transfer and production of records as premature or not contractually required.

A minor injunction restraining the defendant from holding himself out as a representative of the business was granted as it was unopposed.

The plaintiff, Bonnechere Excavating Inc., brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent its action, initiated in 2017, from being dismissed for delay.

The action, undefended, concerned a construction contract dispute with His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation).

The plaintiff attempted to justify a four-year and eight-month period of inactivity by citing a purported agreement to arbitrate, the COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in counsel/MTO staff.

The court found these explanations unpersuasive, particularly noting the lack of a mutual arbitration agreement and the plaintiff's failure to actively prosecute the claim.

Despite finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, the court dismissed the action for inordinate delay, emphasizing the importance of enforcing procedural rules for timely justice.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant subcontractor sought an order requiring the respondent general contractor to arbitrate a delay claim separately from the general contractor's delay claim against the owner.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the subcontract explicitly required disputes relating to the owner to be consolidated and disposed of in the same proceedings.

The court also found that the general contractor had used 'best efforts' to advance the global delay claim against the owner in accordance with the prime contract.

This summary trial addressed the plaintiff landlord's claim for damages following the defendant tenant's wrongful repudiation of a commercial lease.

The court determined whether the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate his losses after the tenant vacated the premises early and calculated the damages owed.

The court found that the landlord's mitigation efforts were reasonable given the local market conditions and awarded damages for unpaid rent, the present value of the rent differential with a new tenant, and interest.

This motion for judgment involved a landlord's claim for damages following a tenant's early vacation of premises.

The landlord sought rental arrears and prospective losses.

The tenant argued a material breach by the landlord due to inadequate parking.

The court found the tenant wrongfully repudiated the lease, entitling the landlord to agreed-upon rental arrears.

However, the landlord's claim for lost future rent was deemed to require a summary trial due to insufficient evidence on present value, actual rental value, and mitigation efforts.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.