Errol Treslan

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to amend its declaration and description to remove the requirement that each residential unit be allocated one common element parking space, as the as-built parking garage could not accommodate enough spaces.

A unit owner opposed and brought an oppression application.

The court granted the amendments and dismissed the oppression claim, finding the respondent knew of the parking deficiency prior to purchasing its units.

The appellant appealed Condition 19 of a draft plan of subdivision approval, which required undefined upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to amend the condition.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the revised condition, which limits the scope of road upgrades and aligns them with the Town's Development Charge Background Study, is reasonable, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the condition.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated September 23, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal replaced Paragraph 89 to clarify that the County of Grey has the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and administer final approval of the plan of subdivision under subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the creation of 12 lots for commercial accommodation lodges.

The Town opposed the applications, arguing the proposed use was effectively a short-term accommodation or residential use not permitted in the Resort Commercial designation.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding that the proposed commercial accommodation lodges are a permitted use, conform with the Official Plans, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed, the by-law was amended, and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The court determined how to divide $406,000 in insurance settlement proceeds between a mother and son after a fire destroyed their family poultry processing plant.

The parties had rebuilt the plant using a combination of insurance, mortgages, and personal funds, but did not have a clear written agreement on how to divide any insurance settlement.

The court found that both parties contributed roughly equally to the reconstruction and ordered the insurance settlement to be divided equally.

Claims of unconscionability and unjust enrichment were rejected.

The applicant, W.G., brought a motion to change spousal support, seeking its termination after 14 years of payments to the respondent, K.G. W.G. argued a material change in circumstances due to K.G.'s improved earning capacity and the extended duration of support.

K.G. opposed termination, arguing her health had not significantly improved and her income was insufficient.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including substantial income increases for both parties, K.G.'s improved health and earning capacity, and the termination of child support.

The court concluded that K.G. remained entitled to spousal support, particularly given the compensatory nature of the original award and W.G.'s significantly increased income.

However, the court determined it was appropriate to limit the support's duration and step down the quantum, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines' global maximum due to K.G.'s ongoing partial disability and the causal connection between W.G.'s income increase and the marriage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding proposed Amendment No. PC 225 22 to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which would amend agricultural policies to allow for on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal granted party status to Michael and Mark Krapez and Regal Point Elk Farm without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing commencing on March 24, 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of The Blue Mountains for failing to make decisions on a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two local residents, approved the final Procedural Order on consent, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited against the Town of The Blue Mountains for failing to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals who raised concerns about noise, traffic, and property values.

At the applicant's request, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties time to explore Tribunal-led mediation and potential settlement.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Town of The Blue Mountains' failure to approve planning applications for a 37-unit residential farm co-operative, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a one-day motion for the County of Grey to determine if a County Official Plan amendment is required, and set a two-week merit hearing.

A Procedural Order was approved and appended to the decision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Town of The Blue Mountains' failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision for a proposed 37-unit residential farm co-operative.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and Draft Procedural Order.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondents breached an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) by failing to close a commercial property transaction and an order forfeiting the $100,000 deposit.

The respondents argued there was an agreement to extend the closing date and that the APS did not explicitly provide for deposit forfeiture.

The court found no valid extension agreement and affirmed the principle that a deposit is forfeited upon buyer default, even without explicit contractual terms.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the deposit was not disproportionate to the damages suffered ($35,000 loss on resale) and retention was not unconscionable.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement restricting development to below the 240-metre contour line.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposed instruments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and local official plans, and representing good planning.

The appellant appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 20 residential units.

A settlement was reached between the appellant, the Town, the County, and a condominium corporation, but was opposed by a local residents' group.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal rejected a late request by the Town to impose a condition requiring the developer to provide six affordable housing units, finding it unreasonable and inequitable in the absence of supporting Official Plan policies.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an additional CMC date to continue mediation and potentially convert it to a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a further CMC and a 9-day hearing on the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Tabera Limited against the Town of The Blue Mountains for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium.

The parties requested an additional CMC date to continue mediation, which was scheduled for January 2022.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to four immediate residents without objection from the parties.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit an existing accessory storage shed to remain 3.09 metres from the interior lot line, whereas 15.2 metres is required.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The parties presented a refined Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order, including a contested provision regarding potential costs awards for failing to call evidence on listed issues, and scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for property damage caused by flooding as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs' farm flooded in 2015 after the defendants altered their tile drainage system.

The plaintiffs petitioned the municipality for a municipal drain in 2016 and commenced their action in 2018 after learning the drain project was uncertain.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period was postponed under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act because the plaintiffs were engaged in an alternative administrative process (the municipal drain petition) that made litigation premature.

This appeal concerns the applicable scale of costs when a municipality unsuccessfully appeals an expropriation matter to the courts.

The Ontario Municipal Board ordered compensation to the property owner.

The municipality appealed to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the appeal but awarded only partial indemnity costs of $7,500 rather than full indemnity costs of $23,586.84.

The Divisional Court declined to apply section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act, ruling that ordinary court costs rules applied.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the principle reflected in section 32(1) should apply to court proceedings, entitling the successful respondent to full indemnity costs.