Jonathan Sydor

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

The claimant brought a proceeding under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation regarding a property in Puslinch.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of the proceeding leading up to a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 3, 2025.

The order established a timetable for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of $99,210 in Canadian currency seized at Fallsview Casino, alleging it was the proceeds of unlawful activity, specifically money laundering.

The respondent, Branavan Kanapathipillai, claimed the funds were from legitimate gambling and a third mortgage.

The court reviewed expert evidence, financial tracing, and the respondent’s explanations, ultimately finding the Attorney General met the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The court ordered the funds forfeited, finding the respondent’s explanations unconvincing and the circumstances highly suspicious.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the market value of expropriated lands and damages for injurious affection relating to a septic system and the alleged loss of an unregistered easement for truck access.

The Ontario Land Tribunal determined the market value of the taking was $16,500.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for injurious affection, finding no valid easement existed, truck access was not materially impaired, and the septic system issues were fully mitigated by the respondent's repairs and offer to reconvey the affected land.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's offer to reconvey land did not constitute a Notice of Abandonment under section 41 of the Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a status conference to schedule a land compensation arbitration.

The parties consented to a 10-day hearing commencing December 2, 2024.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the conduct of the proceeding, including deadlines for expert reports, witness statements, and a joint document book.

The Claimant brought a motion for costs on a substantial indemnity scale following the Tribunal's dismissal of the Respondent's motion for leave to amend its Reply to plead a limitation period under the Expropriations Act.

The Claimant argued the Respondent's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith due to an 11-year delay in seeking the amendment.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs motion, finding that while the Respondent's motion was unsuccessful, it was not devoid of merit, did not cause delay, and did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable or bad faith conduct required to award costs.

The Ministry of Transportation brought a motion for leave to amend its Reply to plead the limitation period under section 22 of the Expropriations Act, six years after the original Reply was filed.

The claimant opposed the motion, arguing that the delay caused non-compensable prejudice as evidence and witnesses from the time of the expropriation were no longer available.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the six-year delay was so lengthy that prejudice was presumed, and the claimant had also demonstrated actual prejudice.

The Ministry failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal held a status hearing regarding an expropriation proceeding brought by the claimant seeking compensation from the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties updated the Tribunal on the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which were subsequently filed and approved.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence on May 15, 2023, after the parties reported that settlement discussions had been unsuccessful.

The Tribunal held a status hearing regarding a land compensation claim for an expropriation in the Town of Tecumseh.

The Ministry of Transportation indicated that a settlement with the claimant was imminent.

The Tribunal scheduled a further status hearing for September 2022, directing the parties to either convert it to a settlement hearing or be prepared to set hearing dates and file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if no settlement is reached.

The plaintiff moved for approval of a $15 million settlement in a class action against Ontario concerning the practice of youth segregation in provincial youth justice facilities.

Class counsel also sought approval of a $4.05 million fee and a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks regarding whether youth segregation amounted to unconstitutional solitary confinement.

The court approved the settlement, the counsel fees, and the honorarium.

A telephone conference call was held to determine the status of a procedural order in a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

Counsel for the claimant failed to attend the hearing, as well as a previous hearing.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and returned the file to the Case Coordinator for further direction.

The plaintiff in a certified class action moved for an order approving the form, content, and distribution plan of short and long form notices to class members regarding a proposed settlement.

The court reviewed the motion record and granted the order as requested, noting the notice plan was similar to the one previously approved for certification.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal regarding the calculation of the 10% levy payable to the Class Proceedings Fund under O. Reg. 771/92 of the Law Society Act.

The appellant, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, argued the levy should apply only to settlement funds actually received by class members.

The respondent, Christopher Welsh, contended it should apply to the total settlement funds available.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's interpretation that the levy applies to the amount of settlement funds to which class members were "entitled" regardless of whether they claimed their entitlement.

This decision addresses a rehearing on class counsel's legal fees and the calculation of the Class Proceedings Fund (CPF) levy in a class action settlement.

The court approved the 25% contingency fee, finding it fair and reasonable based on the risk incurred and results achieved, despite an earlier judge's concerns about the settlement's modesty.

The court also determined that the CPF levy should be calculated on the total amount class members were entitled to receive ($10.2 million), rather than the amount actually paid out ($7.5 million), aligning with the settlement agreement and O. Reg. 771/92.

The appellant, as representative plaintiff in a class action on behalf of approximately 4,500 former students of three provincial schools for the Deaf, appealed from a motion judge's order approving class counsel's legal fees subject to conditions.

The class action involved allegations of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and resulted in a $15 million settlement.

The motion judge approved fees of $3.75 million (25% of the settlement) but imposed conditions requiring class counsel to donate $1.5 million to a charity for the Deaf and made the remaining fees subject to proportionate reduction based on settlement fund reversion.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in unilaterally imposing the charitable donation condition without party consent, as this altered the negotiated settlement agreement.

The court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different judge.

This decision grants an unopposed motion for class certification in an action against the Province of Ontario concerning the alleged unlawful use of youth segregation in justice facilities.

The class is defined as persons under 18 placed in youth segregation for more than 6 consecutive hours without meaningful human contact between April 1, 2004, and December 17, 2018.

The common issues certified include claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $15 million settlement in a class action against Ontario regarding systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty at provincially-run schools for the deaf.

The court found the settlement to be poor for the majority of the class, as 90% of the student class and 100% of the family class would receive no compensation.

However, given the significant litigation risks and the lack of aggregate damages available, the court approved the settlement as falling within the zone of reasonableness.

The court also approved class counsel's fee request of $3.75 million, but on the condition that counsel donate $1.5 million to a charity for the deaf to introduce a cy-près element and provide some benefit to the uncompensated class members.

The Crown appealed a motion judge's order striking its third party claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Crown's third party claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the respondent plaintiff amended his pleading to include language that would render the Crown's third party claim subject to being struck.

As a result, while the appeal was allowed, the practical outcome remained that the Crown's third party claim was struck.

The court awarded costs in accordance with the motion judge's decision, with each party bearing their own costs of the appeal.

This is an appeal of a motion judge's decision to strike the Crown's third party claims against 15 non-government, non-profit organizations that operated youth detention centres under contract with the Crown.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter rights arising from the use of solitary confinement in youth detention centres.

The plaintiff limited his claim to damages attributable to the Crown's proportionate degree of fault.

The motion judge struck the Crown's third party claims, relying on the principle from Taylor v. Canada (Health Canada) that when a plaintiff limits damages to a defendant's proportionate fault, the defendant cannot pursue contribution and indemnity claims.

The Crown appealed, arguing it was not plain and obvious that third party claims had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly regarding vicarious liability and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

This class action concerned historical abuse at the W. Ross MacDonald School for the Blind.

The court approved an $8,000,000 settlement fund, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the advanced age of many class members.

The settlement provided for a paper-based, non-adversarial claims process with compensation up to $45,000 per claimant, free from tax claw-backs.

The court also approved a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and fixed class counsel's legal fees at $2,412,534 plus HST and disbursements, emphasizing the risks undertaken and results achieved over mere docketed time.