Harjinder S. Chahal

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law designating a historic former town hall as a property of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued he did not receive notice of the intention to designate and raised structural concerns about the building.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's evidence regarding lack of notice and found the structural engineering evidence irrelevant to the heritage designation.

Relying on the uncontested expert heritage evidence provided by the municipality, the Tribunal found the property met the prescribed criteria for designation.

The appeal was allowed in part only to amend the by-law's statement of cultural heritage value to correct historical inaccuracies, and was otherwise dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Town of Erin's by-law designating a property as a heritage property.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

Following the breakdown of their common law relationship, the parties sought to divide the net proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned home.

The applicant claimed an unequal division based on unjust enrichment for paying the mortgage, while the respondent's father claimed repayment for a $6,000 loan and the cost of home renovations he performed.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the parties had agreed to share expenses according to their means.

The court ordered the $6,000 loan to be repaid from the joint proceeds but found the home renovations were a gift, rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust.

The net proceeds were divided with specific adjustments for initial contributions, closing costs, and legal fees.

The plaintiff brought a claim for unjust enrichment against the defendant, seeking $300,000 for renovations he allegedly performed on her properties during a purported 34-year cohabitation.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory, noting he had previously testified under oath at his criminal trial for harassing the defendant that their relationship was casual and he was married to someone else.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant provided overwhelming evidence that she solely owned and financed the properties, and the plaintiff was compensated for minor work with room and board.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.