Connor Harris

The claimants brought a motion seeking post-judgment interest on their settled costs and an order that the respondent was not entitled to set off costs awarded to it by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The Tribunal found that because the parties had settled the costs without a Tribunal order, post-judgment interest under section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act did not accrue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to vary or relieve the claimants from costs orders made by appellate courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a proposed 32-storey mixed-use building.

The appeals were filed due to the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner.

On consent, the Tribunal consolidated the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals and scheduled an 8-day merit hearing.

Following a decision awarding the claimant $571,891 for injurious affection due to business losses from an expropriation, the parties made written submissions on statutory interest.

The respondent argued that business losses are disturbance damages and do not attract interest under section 33(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that business losses resulting from the construction or use of the works constitute injurious affection under section 1(1)(a)(ii) and therefore attract statutory interest.

The Tribunal ordered interest to be calculated from the beginning of each loss period, totaling $190,170.52 to April 19, 2024, with a per diem thereafter.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's Shoreline Preservation By-law, which introduced a 30-metre setback and natural vegetative buffer requirement around waterbodies to conform with the updated County Official Plan.

The appellant argued the by-law was overly prescriptive and unreasonably restricted land use.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County Official Plan, which explicitly requires a 30-metre setback and vegetative buffer to protect water quality and ecological functions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to add a definition of 'vegetative buffer' and a provision permitting minor maintenance and pruning, but otherwise dismissed the appeal, concluding the by-law represented good planning and appropriately balanced public environmental interests with private property rights.

A case management conference was held to address procedural matters and set a hearing date for an arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2024, and the Procedural Order was appended to govern all further pre-hearing requirements.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals 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.

The parties consented to a draft Procedural Order, which the Tribunal approved to govern the upcoming hearing on the merits scheduled for June 2023.