Elizabeth Bratton

The appellant appealed the Township of Champlain's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments intended to permit a 95-unit residential development consisting of townhouses and a multi-residential block.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and CN Rail reached a settlement that included mitigation measures for the adjacent rail operations.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conformed to the applicable Official Plan, and had regard for matters of provincial interest.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The primary issue was the adequacy and required upgrade standards for a private access road (Pasco Road) located on an unopened road allowance shared by two adjacent townships.

The Tribunal found that because the two townships could not agree on the standard to which the access road should be upgraded, the application failed to satisfy section 51(24)(e) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the proposed subdivision was premature and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the extension of Interim Control By-law No. 83-2024 by the Town of Carleton Place.

During a status update telephone conference call, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a proposed settlement and requested a written settlement hearing.

After confirming that proper notice had been served and an updated Affidavit of Service was filed, the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider the proposed settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under section 51(34) of the Planning Act for the failure of the County of Renfrew to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Township of McNabb/Braeside and participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day merits hearing to commence by video on July 14, 2025.

The applicant appealed the Township of Champlain's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a townhouse and apartment development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a settlement proposal had been provided by CN Rail and an agreement was expected within 30 days.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to either hear a draft settlement or finalize a procedural order for a merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Park View Homes against the Township of Champlain's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed townhouse and apartment development.

The Township and the United Counties of Prescott and Russell did not attend and indicated they would not participate in the proceedings.

Canadian National Railway Company sought and was granted party status on consent, as the proposed development abuts its rail line.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize a Procedural Order.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice claim, arguing the plaintiffs lacked expert evidence on negligence, standard of care, and causation.

Despite previous adjournments and an order for production of expert reports, the plaintiffs failed to provide any.

The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action, emphasizing the critical need for expert evidence in medical malpractice cases and the unreasonableness of further delay.

The plaintiff, Denis Roy, was seriously injured in a 2004 motorcycle accident, suffering physical and psychological impairments.

His insurer, Primmum Insurance Co. (referred to as TD), initially paid attendant care benefits (ACBs) and housekeeping benefits (HKBs) but later reduced and terminated them.

Roy applied for a catastrophic impairment (CAT) determination in 2010, which TD contested for over three years before conceding in 2014.

Roy then sought retroactive ACBs and HKBs, plus statutory interest, from the date of the accident.

The court found that Roy was catastrophically impaired from the date of the accident, that the claimed retroactive ACBs were reasonable and necessary, and that TD was obligated to pay statutory interest due to its failure to comply with SABS obligations and its duty of good faith.

In an action regarding entitlement to catastrophic impairment benefits, the defendant insurer sought an order permitting its counsel to communicate with three of the plaintiff's former treating occupational therapists prior to calling them as witnesses at trial.

The insurer had retained two of the therapists to conduct section 42 assessments.

The court granted leave to bring the late motion but dismissed it on the merits.

The court held that the therapists owed a duty of confidentiality to the plaintiff arising from their therapeutic relationship, which was not waived by the plaintiff's participation in the section 42 assessments or by the limited consent forms he had signed.