Christopher J. Williams

The applicant, a prospective municipal election candidate, brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction staying a Notice of Trespass issued by the respondent Township following a protest she organized.

The Notice barred her from municipal properties, which would prevent her from filing her election nomination in person.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue regarding her freedom of expression, irreparable harm to her electoral participation and reputation, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant given the lack of evidence of misbehaviour.

The court granted the injunction and directed the Township to take no further steps against the applicant under its Citizen Code of Conduct pending the main application.

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan regarding short-term rental (STR) policies.

The parties reached a settlement to replace the STR policies and mapping.

The Tribunal found the revised policies represented good planning and approved them.

However, the Tribunal denied the parties' request to withhold the Final Order until a site-specific zoning by-law amendment for certain appellants was processed, finding that delaying a Township-wide policy for a private agreement was not in the public interest.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued procedural directions.

The parties advised that the estimated hearing length could be reduced from 40 to 29 days.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file written submissions on their preferred mode of hearing and set a deadline for any motions to limit or exclude evidence.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on June 9, 2025, and end on July 18, 2025.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a settlement between one appellant and the Town, the parties sought approval of minor amendments to clarify the by-law's language regarding the timing of land value assessments and the definition of development, aligning it with sections 41 and 42(6.4) of the Act.

The Tribunal approved the amendments on consent, resolving that appellant's appeal, while the appeals of the other parties remain ongoing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), Distrikt Developments, and Silwell Developments Limited against the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law.

The Town and BILD agreed to schedule a motion hearing to address a threshold jurisdictional issue regarding BILD's requested relief for expanded parkland credits.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion hearing for November 28, 2024, and set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

At a previous CMC, the parties had agreed that the Oro-Medonte Association of Responsible STRs' appeal was deemed dismissed by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (Bill 185).

However, the Association subsequently argued that its appeal was saved by a transition provision in the Planning Act, because other valid appeals had been filed in respect of the same plan.

The Tribunal agreed with the Association's interpretation of s. 17(24.0.2)(b) of the Planning Act, finding that the Association's appeal was not deemed dismissed and that it maintained its full rights as an appellant party.

The Tribunal also declined to approve a settlement between the Township and other appellants at this stage, directing the parties to provide a status update.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of a portion of its commercial plaza property by Metrolinx for a grade separation project.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property was a standalone mixed-use residential redevelopment, rejecting Metrolinx's argument that an assemblage of adjoining properties was required.

The Tribunal awarded $4,570,000 for the market value of the fee simple taking, declining to apply the 'before and after' valuation method under section 14(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal also awarded $50,000 for a temporary easement and $1,321,061 for injurious affection caused by the grade separation and loss of access.

Interest was awarded at 6% from the date Metrolinx acquired legal possession.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

Following the enactment of Bill 185, the appeal by the Oro-Medonte Association of Responsible STRs was dismissed.

The Association requested that a member be substituted as an appellant, which the Tribunal denied as the appeal period had lapsed.

However, the Tribunal permitted the submission of a Party Status Request to be added as a party sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal also approved the Issues List and scheduled a third Case Management Conference to address potential settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

Prior to the hearing, two appellants withdrew their appeals.

The Township requested a delay in scheduling the hearing on the merits due to proposed Bill 185, which could retroactively remove the remaining appellants' appeal rights.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 2024 to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and to set hearing dates if necessary.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal by 2541005 Ontario Limited against the Township of Oro-Medonte's Zoning By-law No. 2020-046, which restricts the growing of cannabis and industrial hemp crops in agricultural zones.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting the schedule and rules for an 8-day video hearing commencing on July 15, 2024.

The appellant, Oro-Medonte Property Owners’ Association, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to quash a by-law imposing water system fees and to declare the water system municipal.

The by-law was passed by the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, to fund upgrades to the Zone 1 water system.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Zone 1 system was not assumed by the municipality and that the by-law was within the municipality's statutory authority under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appeal was dismissed.

In these cross-motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision, the Tribunal considered the interaction between the Indemnity Principle under the Expropriations Act and the efficiency objective reflected in Rule 49 settlement-offer consequences.

The Tribunal held that an owner recovering less than 85 per cent of the authority’s offer is not automatically disentitled to costs, but discretionary consequences may follow where the owner unreasonably rejects a proper offer and pursues the claim inefficiently.

The Tribunal found the June 15, 2018 offer was a proper plus-costs offer, that the claimant’s non-acceptance was unreasonable, and that the claimant’s stale and incomplete expert preparation, procedural inaction, and wasteful conduct justified reducing its scale of recovery after that date and awarding the authority partial indemnity costs throughout.

The claimant received reduced costs, and the authority also recovered partial indemnity costs.

The claimants, Oakville Developments (2010) Inc. and Shoppers Realty Inc., sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of their property interests by Metrolinx for a transit project.

Following a status hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the conduct of the upcoming 13-day video hearing.

The hearing was bifurcated, with Phase 1 addressing market value and injurious affection relating to the taking, and Phase 2 addressing disturbance damages and other entitlements.

The Tribunal considered a motion to settle a site-specific appeal of a municipal-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis production and processing facilities.

The Tribunal found that it could approve the site-specific settlement prior to hearing the remaining municipal-wide appeal because the settlement instrument could stand alone and would not pre-determine the outcome of the broader appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable official plans by balancing agricultural promotion with the protection of sensitive land uses.

The settlement was approved and the remaining municipal-wide appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the procedural schedule and format for two upcoming motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation, rejected the claimant's request to bifurcate the hearing into separate entitlement and quantum phases, and directed that both motions be heard concurrently over a five-day period, with the claimant presenting its motion first.

A case management conference was held regarding two expropriation claims against Metrolinx by a property owner and its tenant.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two proceedings on consent.

The Tribunal rejected Metrolinx's request to delay the hearing pending the outcome of unrelated planning appeals, finding no justifiable basis for delay.

A 13-day first phase hearing was scheduled for February 2024 to determine market value and injurious affection, with a second phase deferred to address disturbance damages and further injurious affection once the infrastructure work is completed.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's Parkland Dedication By-law No. 2022-108.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the recent enactment of Bill 23 and its pending regulations might necessitate the repeal and replacement of the by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the Town to provide a status update by October 1, 2023, after consulting with the appellants.

In a land compensation proceeding, the claimant brought a motion for directions regarding the interpretation of a prior Tribunal order for document production and discovery.

The Tribunal clarified that the claimant must produce full, unredacted copies of expert reports and supporting evidence that existed at the time of its statement of claim, but exempted communications protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal also directed the claimant's representative to reattend for examination for discovery regarding the produced documents.

The claimant brought a motion regarding the City's alleged failure to disclose documents over which it claimed litigation, settlement, or solicitor-client privilege in its Affidavit of Documents.

The Tribunal found that litigation was reasonably contemplated by December 2015, but the City had not fully met its onus to show all subsequent documents were prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The Tribunal ordered the City to provide a fresh Schedule B and produce documents predating the March 2020 Statement of Claim, subject to redactions for legal advice and settlement positions.

In an expropriation proceeding, both the claimant and the respondent municipality brought motions regarding questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The Tribunal ordered the City's representative to answer questions about the purchase price of adjacent lands, finding it relevant to the claimant's theory of highest and best use.

The Tribunal also ordered the claimant's representative to provide an itemized list of rental losses and to produce valuation reports referenced in its pleadings, provided that the claimant was not required to produce new analyses or expert work product protected by litigation privilege.