4 total
Tribunal approved a consent Procedural Order scheduling a 20-day hearing for subdivision and zoning appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Waterloo's Official Plan, zoning by-law amendments, and draft plans of subdivision.
The City withdrew its motion to geographically scope the Official Plan appeal.
The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduling a 20-day video hearing for October 2022 and setting out the procedural requirements, including the exchange of draft conditions and expert witness meetings.
Procedural timetable established and hearing scheduled for land compensation claim regarding light rail transit project.
The claimants sought compensation for the market value of land taken by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for a light rail transit project, as well as disturbance damages and injurious affection for business losses.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to establish a procedural timetable and schedule the hearing.
The Tribunal ordered the parties to adhere to the agreed-upon timetable and scheduled a nine-day hearing to commence on November 7, 2022.
Tribunal consolidated Official Plan and site-specific appeals and scheduled a 20-day hearing.
This was the second Case Management Conference for appeals regarding the City of Waterloo's 2012 Official Plan and related site-specific applications for zoning by-law amendments and plans of subdivision.
The Tribunal consolidated the Official Plan appeal with the site-specific appeals.
A 20-day video hearing was scheduled for October 2022, with a third Case Management Conference scheduled for November 2021 to finalize the procedural order and issues list.
Medical malpractice action dismissed; surgeon met standard of care and esophageal injury did not cause stroke.
The plaintiff underwent emergency surgery performed by the defendant thoracic surgeon to repair a paraesophageal hiatus hernia.
During the operation, a bougie became stuck in the plaintiff's esophagus, and its removal caused a de-gloving injury to the esophagus.
Several weeks later, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke.
The plaintiffs sued the surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the performance of the surgery and that the resulting esophageal injury caused the stroke.
The court dismissed the action, finding that the surgeon met the standard of care and that the stroke was cardioembolic, caused by atrial fibrillation, and unrelated to the esophageal injury.