Conner Harris

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings leading up to a 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 16, 2025, regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to consolidate four separate appeals concerning development charges under the Development Charges Act.

The appellants opposed the motion, arguing that their appeals were site-specific, at different stages of readiness, and based on different legal challenges.

The Tribunal denied the motion to consolidate, finding insufficient commonalities and concluding that combining the appeals would be prejudicial to the individual parties and inefficient.

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.

The Claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act after the Ministry of Transportation closed one of two driveway accesses to its mixed-use property during highway improvement works.

The Respondent argued the closed access and the commercial use of the property were illegal, precluding compensation.

The Tribunal found that the access and commercial use were legal, having been implicitly approved and in existence for decades.

Applying the test from Antrim, the Tribunal determined the closure caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Claimant's use of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the Claimant's 'Cost to Cure' appraisal approach and awarded $149,160 to construct an internal loop driveway, plus $27,500 for disturbance damages related to the land required for the new driveway.

The Claimant sought compensation for injurious affection after the Ministry of Transportation closed one of two accesses to its mixed-use property during highway improvements.

The Ministry argued the closed access and the commercial use of the property were illegal, precluding compensation.

The Tribunal found that the access and commercial use were legal and grandfathered.

Applying the test for injurious affection where no land is taken, the Tribunal awarded the Claimant $149,160 based on a 'cost to cure' approach to construct an internal loop driveway, plus $27,500 for disturbance damages.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The applicant submitted a revised application, and the parties agreed to a revised Procedural Order and a new 14-day Merit Hearing date.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order, scheduled the Merit Hearing for March 11, 2024, and directed the parties' planning experts to provide an agreed Statement of Facts.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and requested that a merit hearing be scheduled.

The City opposed the request, arguing it was premature to schedule the hearing before a related Official Plan Amendment appeal decision was released.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding it premature to schedule a merit hearing because the parties had not yet submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's non-decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring two 15-storey towers and townhouses.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence that the settlement plan represents good planning, conforms to applicable policies, and provides appropriate intensification.

The Tribunal rejected late condition requests from a residents' group as being matters for site plan approval.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with four residential towers and a hotel.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced tower floor plates and overall gross floor area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final by-law drafts and confirmation of infrastructure capacity.

The defendants, RepVisor Portfolio Systems Inc. et al., brought a motion seeking $100,000 (later reduced to $81,000) in security for costs from the plaintiff, Ian McLean, in his capacity as Trustee of the JSL Trust.

The moving parties argued that the plaintiff was a nominal plaintiff and lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential costs award.

The plaintiff countered that he was not a nominal plaintiff, possessed sufficient assets, and that section 249(3) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) provided immunity from posting security for costs for oppression remedies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff, as a trustee with fiduciary duties, was not a nominal plaintiff, and the moving parties failed to demonstrate insufficient assets.

Furthermore, the court noted that the action, in substance, was an oppression remedy, which weighs against ordering security for costs under the OBCA.

The plaintiff was awarded $5,000 in costs.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the conservation authority's refusal to issue a development permit.

The parties provided a preliminary Hearing Work Plan setting out the anticipated order and schedule of witnesses.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video merit hearing and directed the parties to continue working together to meet the timelines in the Procedural Order.

The respondent conservation authority brought a motion to strike two fact witnesses from the appellant's witness list and to permit the pre-hearing examination of witnesses summoned by the appellant.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the two fact witnesses had no direct knowledge of the appeal or were not giving evidence with respect to the decision under appeal, and were therefore not necessary for a fair and expeditious hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered that any testimony from summoned witnesses be limited to factual evidence and permitted the respondent to examine them prior to the merit hearing.

At a third Case Management Conference for an appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act, the Tribunal addressed scheduling and procedural issues arising from an increased number of proposed witnesses.

The Tribunal granted extensions to the procedural order timetable, scheduled a 12-day merit hearing, and directed that three preliminary motions regarding witness summons and evidence be heard in writing prior to the hearing.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to link two expropriation arbitrations and have them heard together.

The first arbitration involved the property owner's claim for market value and disturbance damages due to development delay.

The second arbitration involved a commercial parking lot tenant's claim for business losses resulting from a temporary easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claims involved different damages, different expert evidence, and no common issues of fact or law other than arising from the same expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that linking the proceedings would cause prejudice, delay, and increased costs for the tenant.

The claimant, a restaurant operator, sought compensation for injurious affection and disturbance damages resulting from the expropriation of a portion of its leased plaza's common areas and the subsequent construction of the Eglinton Light Rail Transit project.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the claimant was an "owner" under the Expropriations Act due to its interest in the common facilities.

The Tribunal held that the severe traffic disruptions caused by the prolonged construction directly resulted in a significant decline in the restaurant's customer counts and revenues.

The Tribunal awarded $571,891 for business losses incurred between October 2017 and March 2020.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the loss of the business's overall value, finding that the restaurant's permanent closure was ultimately caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its pre-existing reliance on the claimant's other shuttered restaurants, rather than the expropriation.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection after the Ministry of Transportation removed an access point to its property during highway improvements.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the hearing was adjourned due to a medical emergency involving the respondent's key witness.

The parties subsequently brought three procedural motions.

The Tribunal declined to strike the respondent's late-filed witness statement but limited the witness's testimony to factual matters.

The Tribunal granted the respondent leave to withdraw deemed admissions, finding a triable issue, a reasonable explanation for the delay, and no prejudice to the claimant.

Finally, the Tribunal awarded the claimant $5,500 in costs thrown away to indemnify it for wasted preparation time resulting from the adjournment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by LCG 100 Eglinton Square Ltd. for the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a 35-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to Golden Mile Landowners Group Inc., Mattamy Eglinton Ltd., and Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection and disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a fresh as amended procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day video hearing, replacing the previous procedural order issued in February 2021.