Jonathan Nehmetallah

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Dunpar Homes against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to Dundas Developments Limited without objection.

Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. converted its status from party to participant.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence on October 28, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 41(3.7) of the Planning Act to deem its site plan application complete.

The City of Guelph had refused to accept the application, arguing it was incomplete due to missing external agency clearances, lack of conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement, and the retroactive effects of the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023.

The Tribunal found that the City conflated the requirements for deeming an application complete with the requirements for granting site plan approval.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had provided all prescribed materials and that the City's additional demands at the completeness stage were unreasonable.

The motion was granted, and the application was deemed complete as of its submission date.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that prohibited short-term rental accommodations.

At the first case management conference, the parties indicated they would seek non-tribunal-led mediation to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute.

The tribunal scheduled a second case management conference to allow time for mediation and potential settlement.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The amendment facilitated the creation of four residential lots on an island and implemented environmental protections.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' notice of appeal merely quoted policies from the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan without explaining how the by-law was inconsistent or failed to conform with them.

Relying on the East Beach decision, the Tribunal concluded the appeal did not disclose any genuine, legitimate, and authentic planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential and commercial development in Toronto.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, with a minor wording dispute resolved during the conference.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence in October 2024.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a consent application to create a new residential water access lot on an island property.

Several neighbours brought a motion for party status, which the Tribunal dismissed, granting them participant status instead.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed consent, subject to conditions implementing an Environmental Impact Study and zoning requirements, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The Township of Tiny brought a motion under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the unappealed portions of its new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the unappealed portions into effect and amending the by-law to permit a Mineral Aggregate Resources zone on specific lands in accordance with a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal also scheduled hearing dates for the remaining site-specific and section-specific appeals, including those related to short-term rentals, boathouses, and specific zoning designations.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a zoning by-law regulating short-term rental accommodations in the Township of Tiny.

The Tribunal directed that related appeals concerning the Official Plan Amendment and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law be heard together.

The parties were ordered to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List for the next case management conference.

The Landlord sought leave to appeal an arbitration award concerning the rent reset for a 99-year ground lease, and alternatively, to set aside the award for excess of jurisdiction.

The arbitration tribunal had valued the "Demised Premises" at $63.3 million, while the Landlord argued for $95 million.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Majority's interpretation of the lease or its valuation mandate.

The court also dismissed the application to set aside the award, holding that the Landlord's arguments were an attempt to re-litigate the merits under the guise of a jurisdictional challenge.

The respondent Board brought a motion in a judicial review proceeding to add the subject physician as a party respondent, seal third-party medical records inadvertently included in the record, and strike the self-represented applicant's affidavit, application record, and factum.

The court granted the requests to add the physician and seal the records on consent.

The court struck the applicant's affidavit and portions of her application record as they raised irrelevant policy issues and complaints unrelated to the specific decision under review.

The court declined to strike the factum, finding it provided a manageable summary of the applicant's position for the hearing panel.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for unlawfully undertaking development within 120 metres of a provincially significant wetland without permission from the Halton Regional Conservation Authority.

The appeal addressed four main issues: the reasonableness of the convictions, alleged infringements of section 7 Charter rights (including disclosure and abuse of process), alleged infringements of section 11(b) Charter rights (unreasonable delay), and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and the Charter applications, finding the convictions reasonable and no Charter breaches.

However, the court partially allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing one appellant's fine, vacating the other's fine and substituting a suspended sentence, and amending the probation order to a one-year term with specific conditions, while upholding the remediation order.

Other counts were conditionally stayed based on the Kienapple principle.

In a proposed class action regarding a massive data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for substitutional service on a defendant residing in the United States whose exact whereabouts were unknown.

The court held that because the defendant's address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply, and service could be effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, allowing substitutional service by emailing the documents to the defendant's U.S. criminal defence attorney.

The court issued a costs decision in an exceptional case following a carriage motion in a class action.

The Slapinski Action Consortium, though unsuccessful in the carriage motion, sought costs against the Del Giudice Action Consortium's counsel for non-compliance with a case management direction regarding simultaneous exchange of motion materials.

The court found that the Del Giudice Action Consortium's failure to comply with the simultaneous exchange rule prejudiced the court's ability to fairly decide the carriage contest, constituting a default under Rule 57.07.

Despite the Del Giudice Action Consortium's success on the carriage motion, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $42,907 to the Slapinski Action Consortium, to be paid personally by the Del Giudice Action Consortium's counsel.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of three overlapping actions brought under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The actions arose from a family dispute concerning the appellant's exclusion from his grandfather's will and alleged undue influence and fraudulent conduct by family members and lawyers.

The motion judge dismissed the actions as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge failed to make explicit findings that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process; (2) the harassment and defamation claims were supported by the pleadings; and (3) the motion judge failed to explain why the statements of claim could not be amended.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal and upheld the dismissals.

The appellants were convicted of two counts of breaching a regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act.

At trial, they were sentenced to fines of $5,000 each and a two-year probation order requiring reconstruction of a seawall.

The Conservation Authority appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, seeking removal of a home addition as a sentencing term.

The POAC judge allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, remitted the fines, and ordered removal of the addition.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arguing the POAC judge exceeded the scope of appellate review by reversing factual findings without identifying palpable and overriding error.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the POAC judge impermissibly substituted his own findings regarding whether the conduct constituted a flagrant and deliberate breach of the regulations.