Conner Harris

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East.

The Tribunal noted a change in ownership to Mattamy Eglinton Limited Partnership and scheduled third and fourth Case Management Conferences, as well as a 14-day Hearing of the Merits.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a development permit for his property.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal noted that the parties were engaged in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing in the event that a settlement is not reached.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2004085 Ontario Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East.

The Tribunal granted party status to three neighbouring property owners on consent.

The parties were directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled for February 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

A residents' association sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel construction of a community centre at a specified site under minutes of settlement arising from planning appeals.

The court held the minutes were part of a planning framework under the Planning Act, not a final and everlasting commercial contract, and that essential terms remained dependent on further agreements including a section 37 agreement and related instruments.

The court further held the minutes did not obligate the municipality to construct, maintain, or operate the facility, and that the discretionary letters-of-credit provision did not create such an obligation.

Specific performance was refused, and the application was dismissed.

The City of Windsor appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision awarding the respondents approximately $2.8 million in compensation for expropriated lands and injurious affection.

The City argued the LPAT breached natural justice by copying the respondents' submissions and erred in its treatment of Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) regarding environmentally sensitive lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the extent of copying did not rebut the presumption of independent decision-making.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the LPAT's factual findings regarding the impact of the PPS on the lands' development potential, the valuation of the properties, or the award of interest.

In the context of a pending summary judgment motion regarding an alleged negligent misrepresentation of intent to acquire property for a GO Train station, both parties brought motions to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits.

The Master applied the principles from Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. to determine the proper scope of cross-examination.

Notably, the Master found that the defendant waived solicitor-client privilege by relying on its counsel's advice to support its defence of good faith and to allege ulterior motives by the plaintiffs.

Both parties were ordered to answer specific questions and re-attend for further cross-examination.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought judicial review of the respondent City's actions during the expropriation of restrictive covenants in its lease.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness regarding the timing of disclosure and the City's refusal to consent to an adjournment of the Hearing of Necessity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City met its statutory obligations and owed no broader common law duty of procedural fairness at that stage.

The Court also declined to rule on the validity of the expropriation, finding the application premature as the applicant had withdrawn from the statutory hearing process and no final expropriation decision had been made.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a jointly owned property rather than its partition.

Following the commencement of the appeal, the appellants sold their interest in the property to the respondent for $3,900,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the issues raised were not elusive of review and did not warrant the expenditure of judicial resources.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs to the respondent in the agreed amount of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant property owner appealed a decision granting the respondent municipality a prescriptive easement for a watermain installed on the property in 1979-1980.

The appellant argued the municipality's use was not open, that the burden of proof regarding permission was reversed, and that public authorities with expropriation powers cannot acquire prescriptive easements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably inferred the owners had actual or imputed knowledge of the watermain, the lack of evidence of permission rendered any burden of proof issue moot, and there is no legal bar preventing municipalities from acquiring prescriptive easements.

The appellants appealed an order of the Surveyor General confirming a survey plan that fixed the position of a concession road allowance and shore road allowance across their property.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by disregarding an original monument and relying on a standard iron bar as the best evidence of the inner limit of the shore road allowance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the application of the hierarchy of survey evidence and no palpable and overriding error in the Surveyor General's factual findings regarding the monuments.

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.

The plaintiff sued his neighbours in nuisance and negligence, alleging that their home reconstruction altered drainage patterns and caused water to infiltrate his basement.

The defendants counterclaimed for trespass, nuisance, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, alleging the plaintiff's own landscaping caused the water issues and that the plaintiff's wife maliciously sought a peace bond against them.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the defendants' construction was reasonable, approved by the city, and did not breach the standard of care.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence indicated the plaintiff's own landscaping likely caused the water accumulation.

The counterclaims were dismissed as trivial or lacking evidence of malice.

The applicant property owner sought a mandatory injunction requiring the respondent municipality to remove a watermain that had been installed on its property in 1979 or 1980.

The municipality brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that it had acquired a prescriptive easement over the land.

The court found that the municipality had established continuous, uninterrupted, open, and peaceful use of the land for the watermain for over 20 years prior to the property's conversion to the Land Titles system, without permission from or objection by the property owners.

The court granted the municipality a prescriptive easement and dismissed the property owner's application for removal.

The appellant's property was damaged by flooding following significant rainfalls in May 2013.

The floodwaters originated from adjacent land expropriated by the respondent municipality in 2009 for a construction project.

The appellant had commenced an injurious affection claim before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2011.

Following the flooding, the appellant commenced an action in Superior Court in June 2015.

The respondent moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found the claim was discoverable when the flooding occurred in May 2013.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether an action in Superior Court would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy, and by misapprehending the evidence regarding the appellant's belief that the OMB had exclusive jurisdiction over injurious affection claims.

The appellants, owners of waterfront properties on Nottawasaga Bay, appealed a decision of the Coordinator in the Office of the Surveyor General confirming a municipal resurvey under the Surveys Act.

The resurvey extended two road allowances straight across accreted lands to the water's edge, effectively cutting off the appellants' water access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Coordinator's decision was unreasonable.

The Court held that the Surveys Act does not displace the common law principles of accretion, which dictate that accreted lands attach to riparian properties and should be equitably allocated.

The matter was remitted for a trial of an issue regarding whether the survey should be confirmed with or without amendments.

The appellant purchased a commercial property that was contaminated by hydrocarbons that had migrated from an adjacent former gas station property.

The respondents moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the contamination more than two years before commencing the action.

The motion judge granted the motion, finding that the appellant had knowledge of the claim by March 9, 2012, or alternatively by March 30, 2012.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by equating the appellant's suspicion of contamination with actual knowledge of contamination, and by failing to consider the relevant circumstances of the multi-property transaction and the waiver of conditions.

The appellant car wash business appealed an Ontario Municipal Board order requiring it to pay $86,943.20 in costs to the respondent municipality after its claim for injurious affection was dismissed.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and the Board placed undue reliance on the respondent's $15,000 settlement offer.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under the Expropriations Act to award costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct in refusing the offer and proceeding with a meritless claim.