Jeffrey Donald Lanctot

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Uxbridge and the Regional Municipality of Durham to make decisions on applications for Official Plan Amendments, a Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 541-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement endorsing the approval of the applications.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the planning instruments.

The defendants' custom-built home and garage encroached significantly onto the plaintiffs' neighbouring property.

The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of the encroachment.

The defendants admitted trespass but sought an equitable remedy allowing them to retain the land, and brought a third-party claim against the builder, surveyor, and municipality for negligence and breach of contract.

The court declined to order an injunction, finding it would be oppressive to the defendants and that the injury to the plaintiffs was small and compensable by money.

The court ordered the severance and transfer of the encroached land to the defendants for compensation.

The court also found all three third parties liable for the encroachment, apportioning fault 70% to the builder, 15% to the surveyor, and 15% to the municipality, and ordered them to fully indemnify the defendants.

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion requesting that the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, and a plan of subdivision be phased.

The Township proposed that the first phase deal with threshold issues of servicing allocation and sewage capacity.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the applications should be considered comprehensively and that phasing would cause significant delay and redundancy in expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that there would be ample crossover in expert witnesses and that it was appropriate to hear the comprehensive applications together.

The Applicant appealed the Township's and Region's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan amendments, a zoning by-law amendment, and a draft plan of subdivision for a 588-unit residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to three neighbouring landowners based on proximity and shared issues regarding servicing and land use compatibility.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion brought by the Township to determine whether the hearing should be phased to address servicing as a threshold issue, and provisionally scheduled a four-week hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision, specifically contesting the County's requirements for additional hydrogeological studies to protect the municipal water supply located in the Norwood Esker.

The applicant argued that sufficient work had already been done and that the County's demands were unnecessary and inequitable.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the County's hydrogeological experts, finding that a precautionary approach was warranted given the high vulnerability of the village's water source.

The Tribunal concluded that the County's revised conditions were reasonable, consistent with provincial policies on source water protection, and represented good planning in the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, 1159273 Ontario Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, HST, and interest, arguing it was a dependent contractor of the defendant, The Westport Telephone Company Limited.

The court analyzed the factors for determining contractor status, including exclusivity, control, provision of tools, business risk, and integration, considering the complex corporate and tax planning structures involved.

The court found that the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not a dependent one, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The court also noted the plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages.

This motion addressed whether a main action and a third-party action, stemming from a property dispute involving an encroaching structure, should be heard concurrently or sequentially.

The Plaintiffs sought a combined hearing, while the Defendants and Third Parties preferred separate proceedings.

The court, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness, determined that the intertwined factual and legal issues, particularly concerning the appropriate equitable remedy for the admitted trespass and the allocation of financial responsibility among all parties, necessitated a single, consolidated trial.

The motion for concurrent hearings was granted to avoid multiplicity of actions and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The County of Peterborough brought a motion seeking an order to allow the Township of Asphodel-Norwood and its engineering consultants access to the appellant's property.

The access was requested to conduct hydrogeological and stormwater management testing, including drilling boreholes, to prepare for an upcoming hearing regarding draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested access was premature, highly intrusive, and not necessary for the disposition of the issues, as the necessity of the testing itself is a central issue to be determined at the main hearing.

The applicant, a landlord, sought judicial review of a City of North Bay by-law imposing licensing requirements on rental properties with multiple tenants.

She argued the by-law discriminated against students contrary to the Human Rights Code and the Charter, and conflicted with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that student status is not a protected ground, there was no evidence of adverse effects discrimination, and the by-law did not conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice action on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The defendant argued the plaintiff discovered the claim when he learned a nerve had been cut during surgery.

The court found that knowledge of a cut nerve, without reason to believe it was more than an unfortunate surgical outcome, was insufficient to start the limitation period.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff dismissing the limitation period defence.

Following a trial judgment in a historic sexual abuse action, the court determined costs and the commencement date for pre-judgment interest.

The self-represented plaintiff was awarded fixed costs of $97,000 inclusive of disbursements, with a modest $5,000 allowance for self-representation rather than the full counsel fees claimed, and the handwriting expert disbursement was disallowed as unnecessary.

Applying a practical costs-fixing approach under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court accepted the legitimacy of prior counsel accounts and considered the spirit of the Victims Bill of Rights, 1995 in fixing the self-representation component.

Pre-judgment interest at five percent was ordered from August 1, 2001, except on the future care special damages award.