Emrys Charles Davis

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal approved a partial settlement between the City and the Guelph & District Home Builders’ Association, finding it represented good land use planning and was consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal also established a Procedural Order and scheduled a three-week merits hearing for the remaining appeals.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding a proposed livestock trailer washing facility, the Tribunal considered requests for party status.

The Tribunal denied party status to the Wanstead Concerned Citizens Group because it is an unincorporated entity and therefore not a 'person' under the Rules.

However, the Tribunal granted party status to Jessica Jessome, a directly affected neighbouring landowner, finding that her unique perspective and intended planning evidence would assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the appeals effectively.

Procedural directions and hearing dates were also set.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a contractor's business on an agricultural lot.

The subject property is designated as prime agricultural land.

The appellants argued the use was small-scale, compatible with surrounding farms, and that no reasonable alternative locations existed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed use was not an agricultural, agriculture-related, or on-farm diversified use, and that reasonable alternative locations existed in nearby settlement areas.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed ZBA was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the County Official Plan, and did not represent good land use planning.

A status hearing was held regarding the delay in implementing the Tribunal's interim order directing the parties to enter into a Site Plan Agreement.

The Township had failed to provide a draft agreement for 15 months, prompting the Appellant to file a motion requesting the Tribunal waive the requirement or accept its draft.

The Township subsequently produced a draft agreement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in Tribunal-assisted mediation to resolve their differences and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2026, noting it would settle any remaining terms if the parties could not reach an agreement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment that would facilitate an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to one group of landowners and participant status to 24 individuals and groups.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing date until the parties submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The prosecution tried six provincial offences arising from repeated fire code deficiencies at a multi-unit rental property, including combustible accumulations obstructing egress, deficient fire extinguishers, missing or non-operational smoke alarms, failure to produce inspection records, and an expired carbon monoxide alarm.

The court accepted the evidence of two fire officials as clear, concise, and credible, and relied on extensive photographic and documentary evidence showing ongoing non-compliance despite prior inspections, education, and earlier Part I tickets.

The defendant cross-examined and made submissions about vandalism, work absences, and dissatisfaction with enforcement, but did not testify.

The court held the prosecution proved all six counts beyond a reasonable doubt and entered convictions on every count.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against four major airlines, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and suppress the supply of transborder air travel between Canada and the United States.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they contained only bald, unsupported allegations of a conspiracy without material facts.

The court also found no basis in fact for the proposed common issues, noting that the plaintiff's reliance on parallel U.S. litigation regarding domestic travel was insufficient to support a conspiracy in the transborder market.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert methodology for calculating class-wide loss was deemed purely hypothetical, and the representative plaintiff was found inadequate as she purchased her ticket using loyalty points rather than directly from the defendants.

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.

The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.

The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant and party status to several individuals and entities, deferred one party status request, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 15-day merit hearing.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 39-unit stacked townhouse complex.

The applicant and the Region of Waterloo reached a settlement.

The applicant requested an early settlement hearing, which the Tribunal denied as a three-day hearing was already scheduled for February 2025.

The Tribunal directed that the City, having failed to comply with the Procedural Order, may not call witnesses without first obtaining permission via a motion.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and referred an Aggregate Resources Act licence application to the Tribunal to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal considered expert evidence on air quality, noise, transportation, and land use planning.

The Tribunal found that the proposed pit would have minimal to negligible health risks, would comply with noise guidelines, and that traffic impacts would be mitigated through road reconstruction.

The Tribunal concluded the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, the zoning by-law was amended, and the Minister was directed to issue the licence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated January 22, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the appearances list was revised to correctly identify counsel for Magna International Inc. and Magna Structural Systems Inc. In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant sought approval of revisions to a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan Conditions, and the issuance of a final order for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, following a 2014 Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revisions, which removed phasing requirements due to secured servicing allocation and addressed municipal and conservation authority comments, represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions and issued the final order.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The appellant, Gaurav Tewari, appealed the dismissal of his action for lack of jurisdiction and associated costs orders.

He claimed intellectual property rights violations and breach of agreements.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, no attornment, and that the appellant, acting in a personal capacity, could not rely on a corporate non-disclosure agreement for jurisdiction.

The appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence (earlier agreements) on appeal, which was denied due to lack of due diligence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings on jurisdiction and denied leave to appeal the costs orders, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on a site plan application and an application to remove a holding symbol within the legislated timeframes.

The applications relate to the construction and operation of an outdoor storage facility for pelletized bio-fertilizer.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing to commence on April 15, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. for a zoning by-law amendment and an aggregate licence to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and scheduled a motion hearing to address the potential exclusion of witnesses.

The Tribunal also heard factual information regarding Minutes of Settlement reached between the applicant, the Township, and the Region, while deferring the hearing on the merits to a previously scheduled date.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and a representative plaintiff honorarium following the settlement of two national class proceedings (2012 and 2016 Actions) against various defendants, including Apple Inc., for an alleged eBook price-fixing conspiracy.

The aggregate settlement amount was $15,175,000.

Class Counsel sought $2.7 million in fees (25% of the Apple settlement, adjusted for Quebec) and $43,669.39 in disbursements, plus a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court addressed whether the Class Proceedings Act is a complete code for fee approval, the applicability of the Solicitors Act and its regulations regarding costs and disbursements in "all-in" settlements, and the treatment of notional cost contributions and administration costs.

The court found that the Solicitors Act provisions regarding costs and disbursements should apply harmoniously to class proceedings.

It ruled that disbursements should be deducted from the gross settlement amount, and a notional contribution to costs ($500,000) should be applied before calculating counsel fees.

Settlement administration costs were deemed not a disbursement incurred by counsel.

The court approved class counsel fees of $2,450,000 plus taxes, disbursements of $43,669.39 plus taxes, and an honorarium of $2,500 for the representative plaintiff.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its March 14, 2023 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the list of appearances was amended to add S. Kaufman as counsel for three of the parties.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. for a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Aggregate Resources Act licence to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal formally consolidated the two appeals on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference to consider proposed Minutes of Settlement and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the hearing.