James I. Minnes

Following a settlement of an expropriation claim, the claimant brought a motion for the adjudication of costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act.

The City argued that the claimant's legal fees were unreasonable and excessive, particularly criticizing the use of multiple counsel.

The Tribunal rejected the City's unsubstantiated allegations of abuse of public funds but found some of the time expended by the claimant's counsel to be excessive.

The Tribunal ordered the City to pay the claimant's costs, subject to a 15% and 10% reduction on specific legal fee invoices.

The claimants seek compensation for injurious affection arising from the township's alleged failure to properly construct, maintain, and operate a drainage system.

A case management conference was held to review and approve a revised procedural order and set new hearing dates.

The Tribunal directed the claimants to submit a finalized procedural order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for May 2026, noting the parties' interest in potential mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 79, which introduces the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

The parties requested a revised procedural order with a staggered schedule for document exchange to allow more time for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal approved the revised procedural order, finding that the staggered approach would not prejudice any party and would provide flexibility for continued settlement efforts.

A fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 5, 2023.

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.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted Party Status on consent to the Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, noting that 13 issues remained outstanding pending upcoming Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2023.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to determine whether 3930149 Canada Inc. had standing to request a Hearing of Necessity regarding a proposed expropriation, and to determine the required pre-hearing disclosure.

The Requestor claimed standing as an 'owner' based on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the registered owner, but refused to provide the agreement to the City.

The Tribunal ordered the Requestor to provide a redacted copy of the agreement to the City to establish its standing before a hearing date could be set or further disclosure ordered.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in a previous decision.

The amendment corrected the hearing start date, confirming that the hearing would commence on February 6, 2023, and approved the revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard motions regarding appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

Sheltering parties Castandgrey and Country sought to refuse the appellants' partial withdrawal of appeals, arguing the entire Elfrida Area should remain under consideration for urban expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the motions in part, ruling that while it would not refuse the scoping of issues, the full Elfrida Area potential urban boundary remains under appeal and the Ministry's modifications for non-appellant lands are not in force.

A separate motion by LIV Developments Ltd. for party status was denied as it did not advance the public interest and would result in a multiplicity of proceedings.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's amended application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, arguing the applicant lacked legal capacity after assigning its rights in a real estate purchase agreement to a third party.

The court found that based on the related agreements, the applicant retained the right to sue the respondents regarding a dispute over the property's net area and purchase price.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the applicant was awarded costs.

The applicant, a self-employed pedorthist, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer disputed her entitlement to income replacement benefits, arguing she was not substantially disabled and disputing the calculation of her post-accident business expenses.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and was substantially disabled until October 1995.

The arbitrator allowed most of the applicant's post-accident business expenses, finding they were reasonably incurred to prevent a loss of revenue in her expanded business, but denied her claim for loss of profits.

The arbitrator also awarded various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological counselling and a treadmill.

A special award of 35% was imposed against the insurer for unreasonably delaying and withholding benefits, particularly psychological counselling, despite recommendations from multiple assessors.