James R. Webster

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law, which consolidates 14 existing by-laws.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, consolidated the Mariposa appeals, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference as well as merit hearings for specific appellants.

Procedural directions were issued for the submission of Draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

On a summary judgment motion arising from a failed contract for a prefabricated modular home, the moving parties sought recovery of deposits and personal liability against the corporate principals.

The court granted judgment against the contracting corporation for breach of contract and held the individual principals personally liable for two deposit payments induced by false representations that framing and roof truss work had commenced or was about to commence.

Applying the civil fraud test and principles governing piercing the corporate veil, the court found the representations were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth and that the moving parties relied on them in making the payments.

Punitive damages were refused, but storage costs and partial indemnity costs were awarded.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals related to the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan.

The parties confirmed that a Phase 3 hearing was no longer necessary and scoped the remaining issues for a Phase 4 hearing.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the Phase 4 hearing, scheduled a six-week hearing for May 2023, and granted party status to Ibrans Developments Ltd. on consent.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (OPAs 13-18).

The City brought a motion for partial approval (Draft Order 3) to resolve numerous Phase 2 issues based on an Agreed Statement of Facts by land use planning experts, which the Tribunal approved.

The Tribunal also considered Draft Order 4 to implement Minutes of Settlement regarding settlement boundaries.

Fenelon Trails requested a deferral of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary approval, arguing it would restrict growth.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting Fenelon Trails was a non-appellant party sheltering under another appeal that had settled, and approved Draft Orders 3 and 4 to implement the settlement and boundary adjustments.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal was updated on settlement discussions, a recent Minister's Zoning Order, and the resolution of issues with one of the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file a final hearing plan by February 9, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and hearing dates.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal addressed a request for an adjournment based on a pending disposition letter, confirmed there were no concerns with certain lands remaining within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary, extended the deadline for the Agreed Statement of Facts, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan, Bromont Homes Inc. sought clarification on whether the urban settlement boundary for Lindsay remained a live issue for the upcoming Phase 2 Hearing.

The City and other parties argued the issue was settled and Bromont should have appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that previous orders explicitly preserved Bromont's right to argue against the boundary adjustment and ordered that the issue will be adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.

At a pre-trial conference for a construction dispute, the parties agreed to vacate the scheduled trial dates and establish a protocol for a joint site inspection.

The inspection will involve representatives from various engineering and consulting firms to determine structural deficiencies, remediation methods, and costs.

The court issued a consent order detailing the inspection process, deadlines for expert reports, and scheduled a further pre-trial conference.

The appellant wife appealed a summary judgment that retroactively reduced and prospectively terminated the respondent husband's spousal support obligations.

The husband cross-appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a 2005 consent order and a 1985 marriage contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in interpreting the wife's and her new partner's income tax returns to impute income.

The court substituted a new spousal support order with a step-down approach but no termination date.

The husband's cross-appeal was dismissed, as there was no basis to set aside the consent order and the marriage contract was unenforceable.

The moving party brought motions to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that denied his request to expand the appeal records and hear two appeals together, and ordered him to perfect both appeals within 45 days.

The moving party sought an adjournment of his review motions to obtain further evidence, which the court denied because the review must be based on the material before the single judge.

The court upheld the single judge's decision regarding the records and hearing the appeals together.

However, the court clarified the timeline for perfecting the cross-appeal in the family law matter, allowing the moving party 45 days after the appellant perfects her appeal.

The motion was otherwise dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent lawyer.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower court's order did not terminate the responding party's rights to seek injunctive relief or to have a notice of sale declared invalid.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The individual appellant's appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The corporate appellant's appeal was adjourned to allow for perfection, as the failure to perfect over fifteen months appeared to be due to miscommunication between lawyers and no prejudice was identified.

The adjournment was granted on strict terms, including the payment of $1,500 in costs thrown away to the respondents.