Mr. Bender

The City of Hamilton requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that valued a 411.6-acre portion of a steel production property at a nominal $100 per acre due to alleged environmental contamination.

Shortly after the original hearing, the entire property sold for $518 million.

The Board found that MPAC had jurisdiction to issue the corrected 2018 assessment and that the original panel did not err in admitting hearsay evidence regarding contamination risks.

However, the Board concluded that the post-hearing sale constituted new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and could have affected the original panel's conclusion that the lands were unmarketable.

Consequently, the Board ordered a new hearing of the entire appeal before a different panel.

The Town of Fort Erie brought a motion seeking partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 (the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan) and Zoning By-law No. 144-2021, bringing them into force except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test from Casertano and found that the planning evidence supported the secondary plan, the remaining appeals were scoped to site-specific properties, the draft order protected the remaining appeals, and partial approval was in the public interest to allow other development applications to proceed.

The motion was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Land Planning Appeal Tribunal fixing compensation for expropriated land.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment, determining the highest and best use of the land, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings that the appellant failed to establish a legal non-conforming commercial or industrial use.

The court also held the Tribunal's refusal of an adjournment and its procedural rulings to manage the appellant's disruptive behaviour were reasonable and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A plumber used an open flame torch to repair a leaking pipe in the basement of a heritage mansion.

Shortly after the repair was completed, a massive fire broke out, destroying the house.

The property owner and the condominium corporation's insurers brought a subrogated negligence claim against the plumbing company.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation, as there was no evidence the downward-directed flame ignited combustibles in the adjacent joist space.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of the standard of care because they did not call expert evidence on the standard expected of a reasonably prudent plumber performing soldering work.