David M. Sundin

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a commercial plaza.

At the first case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference and a three-day video hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Enbridge Gas Inc.'s appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that the 1957 franchise agreement between Enbridge and the County of Essex had not expired under the rule against perpetuities.

The court found that the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) erred in law by misapplying the rule against perpetuities, focusing on the duration of the right rather than the vesting of the interest.

The court also held that the Divisional Court was not bound by its earlier decision in Dawn-Euphemia and that the OEB could not impose a new franchise agreement unless the existing one had lapsed or was about to lapse.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law amendment.

The applications sought to permit the adjustment of a Settlement Area Boundary through a land swap.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties, establishing the procedural requirements and scheduling a three-day video hearing to commence on May 7, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant against the Town of Kingsville and the County of Essex regarding a proposed settlement area boundary adjustment through a land swap.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on April 8, 2025, for three days.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the passing of Official Plan Amendment 24 by the Town of Amherstburg.

The parties indicated that a settlement was promising but pending final instructions from the County.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings in the event the matter proceeds to a merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's passing of an Official Plan Amendment, which incorporates new Secondary Plan policies for an industrial park district.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day hearing on the merits, and directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 21, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal added the word 'maximum' to a section of the attachment regarding lot coverage.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Essex and the Municipality of Leamington regarding boarding houses and farm worker housing.

The parties reached a settlement that modified the amendments to remove pedestrian connection requirements, adjust occupancy thresholds for boarding houses, and clarify zoning for off-site farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good planning by supporting the agricultural sector and ensuring safe housing for farm workers.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision that approved the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The OEB had found that the original 1957 franchise agreement expired by operation of the common law rule against perpetuities and ordered a renewal based on the OEB's Model Franchise Agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the OEB had jurisdiction to decide the issue, it erred in law by finding the agreement expired.

The Court determined that the utility's rights under the 1957 agreement were vested, not future contingent interests, and therefore the rule against perpetuities did not apply.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted a consent order to consolidate the two appeals due to commonality and overlapping issues.

The Tribunal also set dates for a 15-day merit hearing and directed the parties to file a final procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals on consent of the parties.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024, by video.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of three Agreements of Purchase and Sale for neighboring homes, alleging the defendant wrongly repudiated the contracts.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action, discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and damages.

The court found that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to close the transactions, and that the defendant acted in bad faith by prematurely terminating the agreements, refusing a reasonable extension, and attempting to rely on a "time is of the essence" clause despite its own conduct and a conflicting document registration agreement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ordering specific performance, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion.

The appellant appealed an order directing insurance proceeds to be paid out of court to the Estate of Walter Ardis.

The appeal raised two main issues: the application judge's refusal to adjourn the insurance proceeds application to be heard concurrently with a related will validity application, and the determination of insurable interest under the insurance contract.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by proceeding with the insurance proceeds application while the validity of the underlying will was still in dispute, and by failing to properly consider the Estate of Margaret Ardis's potential interest in the insurance proceeds, particularly concerning the timing of her death relative to the fire and her interest in the house's contents.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for a joint hearing of both applications.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for utility arrears, maintenance charges, and rent against the respondent tenant.

The parties had previously appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), which issued a consent order declining jurisdiction over current claims but retaining jurisdiction over future invoices.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to treat the LTB order as final and binding.

The court awarded the appellant $292 for utility arrears incurred prior to the LTB order, upheld the dismissal of the maintenance charges and older utility claims due to the limitation period, and awarded the appellant costs of the trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding arrears of rent, utilities, and maintenance charges for a land lease community.

The trial judge had dismissed most claims, finding they fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) as rent.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by failing to treat a prior LTB consent order—which declined jurisdiction over current claims and deferred them to Small Claims Court—as final and binding.

The appeal was allowed in part, awarding the appellants additional damages for utility arrears up to the date of the LTB order, and costs of the trial.

This decision addresses costs following a successful application where the proceeds of a joint bank account, held by the deceased and his daughter Nicole Rocheleau, were declared an asset of the estate rather than a personal gift to Nicole.

Nicole, an estate trustee, sought her costs from the estate, arguing the litigation arose from the testator's actions.

The court denied Nicole's request for costs from the estate, finding she acted in her self-interest and not for the benefit of the estate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant, payable personally by Nicole, due to Nicole's unreasonable conduct during the litigation and her pursuit of a personal benefit.

The plaintiff brought a motion to prevent the administrative dismissal of his action for delay, establish a timetable, and amend his Statement of Claim to add a claim for shares in lieu of cash payment and to add a new corporate defendant.

The defendants opposed the amendment for shares, arguing it was a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the proposed amendment arose from the same factual situation as the original claim and was therefore not a new cause of action.

The court granted the motion to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The applicant sought a determination regarding the proceeds of a joint bank account formerly held by the deceased, Louis Rocheleau, and his daughter, Nicole Rocheleau.

The court found that the presumption of a resulting trust in favour of the estate was not rebutted by Nicole Rocheleau.

She failed to establish that the proceeds or the beneficial right of survivorship were the subject of a valid and completed inter vivos gift, specifically lacking proof of donative intent, acceptance of the gift prior to the donor's death, and the donor's capacity to gift Rachel Rocheleau's interest.

Consequently, the funds in the joint account were deemed an asset of Louis Rocheleau's estate.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to add its subcontractor as a defendant to an existing construction dispute after a tunnel collapse caused additional project costs.

The proposed defendant argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of a potential negligence claim when the tunnel collapse occurred and was therefore required to act with due diligence within two years of that event.

Discoverability did not extend the limitation period merely because the plaintiff later learned of the defendant’s alleged negligence through a statement of defence.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was denied as statute‑barred.

The appellant, acting as power of attorney for his incapacitated father, appealed an application judge's order that released frozen joint funds to the respondent wife, granted her sole authority over a jointly owned Florida property, awarded her $900 per month in spousal support, and ordered the appellant to personally pay $13,500 in costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The court upheld the release of the joint funds and the personal costs award based on the appellant's litigation conduct.

However, the court ordered the partition and sale of the Florida property nunc pro tunc, finding the appellant had authority to sever the joint tenancy.

The court also reduced the spousal support award to $300 per month, noting the application judge failed to consider the father's capacity to pay.