John David Maloney

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying six of eight requested minor variances to permit a two-storey accessory dwelling unit over an existing detached garage.

The adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the appeal, raising concerns about proximity, privacy, and massing.

The Tribunal found that while two variances regarding distance between buildings and parking met the four tests, the remaining six variances regarding setbacks and height did not.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the neighbour's land use planner that the proposed built form was incompatible with the adjacent dwelling and would negatively impact the neighbour's primary living area.

The appeal was allowed in part.

In an expropriation compensation proceeding, the respondent municipality brought a motion to compel production of a real estate appraisal referenced in the claimants' Statement of Claim.

The claimants brought a cross-motion to amend their pleadings to remove references to the appraisal, arguing it was protected by settlement privilege.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered production of the appraisal, finding that the claimants waived any privilege by voluntarily pleading its details.

The Tribunal permitted the claimants to amend their pleadings to rely on additional appraisals, but prohibited the deletion of references to the original appraisal, noting that doing so would prejudice the respondent who had already conducted partial discovery based on the original pleading.

The claimants brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following the expropriation of their property by the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

A ten-day video hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2026.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for a reduced rear yard setback and altered lot coverage percentages to permit an existing enclosed canopy at a mushroom farm.

An adjacent neighbour opposed the appeal, arguing the enclosure constituted an expansion of the operation that would exacerbate existing odor and drainage impacts.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding the enclosure was an addition that improved worker safety without changing the footprint or use of the structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions, including requirements for a building permit, an approved grading and drainage plan, and registration of the site plan agreement on title.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a cottage rental in a Residential Development zone.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing and jointly requested approval of the variance.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.

Following the dismissal of her appeal regarding municipal election compliance audits, the appellant argued she should not be liable for costs because she was a public-interest litigant.

The respondents sought costs, alleging the appellant targeted them for private reasons related to a local development dispute.

The court found that the appellant was a public-interest litigant who brought the applications in good faith to address matters of public importance regarding campaign finances.

The court dismissed the respondents' claim for costs and ordered all parties to bear their own costs.

In a personal injury action, the defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an occupational therapy assessment to address alleged functional limitations and future care costs.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that two defence medical examinations had already occurred and that any occupational therapy assessment should be limited to an interview.

The court considered its jurisdiction under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and the developing jurisprudence permitting assessments by non-medical practitioners where reasonably required.

Given that the plaintiff intended to rely on an occupational therapist’s future care cost analysis at trial, fairness required that the defence be permitted to obtain its own functional assessment.

The court concluded that the requested examination, including physical functional testing, was necessary and not unreasonably intrusive.

An elector appealed decisions refusing to order compliance audits of municipal election campaign finances under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The applications alleged that candidates received excessive contributions from associated corporations and filed incomplete financial disclosure forms (Form 4).

The court held that receiving excessive contributions is not itself a contravention of the Act provided the candidate returns the funds as soon as possible after becoming aware of the violation.

Although several candidates technically contravened the Act by improperly completing Form 4, the compliance audit committee retained discretion whether to order an audit.

Given that the excessive contributions had already been returned and no further information was likely to emerge, it was reasonable to refuse an audit.

The respondents brought a motion for costs against the applicants following the dismissal of the applicants' nuisance claim under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The respondents argued that the applicants' conduct was frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith, particularly because they proceeded without counsel and failed to establish the minimum threshold of disturbance.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants had acted respectfully and that their failure to meet the legal threshold did not amount to bad faith.

The Board reiterated that costs are rarely awarded and should not be used to discourage public participation.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers over the demolition of a boiler, the Board convened a hearing to determine the scope of evidence of Area and Employer Practice to be admitted.

The Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Association Inc. sought status to intervene and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the Association's prior notice and failure to participate earlier.

On the evidentiary issue, the Board ruled that evidence would be limited to the dismantling of field-erected, steam-generating boilers for industrial application, originally erected using Boilermakers, in an operating environment in Ontario, as this constitutes the 'particular work' under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.