Kevin Dias

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment, Sorge Enterprises Inc. brought a motion seeking to invalidate the County's Notice of Decision and to be added as an appellant despite filing its appeal out of time.

Sorge argued the Notice was deficient for failing to explicitly list registered owners as having appeal rights.

The Tribunal found the Notice of Decision met all prescribed regulatory requirements and was valid.

Consequently, Sorge's appeal was out of time, and the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period.

Sorge's request to be added as an appellant was denied, but it was granted non-appellant party status on consent.

The parties submitted a request on consent to amend the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order for a hearing to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended procedural order governing the steps leading up to the hearing.

The claimants brought a motion to compel the respondent City to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The questions related to offers made by the City in 2018 to purchase the expropriated property and a neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found that questions regarding the expropriated property were relevant to determining market value and were not protected by settlement or litigation privilege.

Questions regarding the neighbouring property were deemed irrelevant.

The City was ordered to produce appraisal reports and related correspondence concerning the 2018 offer for the expropriated property.

The City of Waterloo brought a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing dates for an expropriation compensation claim and adjourn the proceeding pending the determination of a related Superior Court civil action.

The civil action concerned a prior planning settlement and whether the claimants were obliged to convey a portion of the expropriated lands to the City.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act and that the title issues raised in the civil action are irrelevant to the expropriation proceeding, as the City acquired full fee simple interest in the entire property through the expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that the expropriation proceeding can proceed concurrently with the civil action.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications to permit a 45-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle on an interim basis, and deferred the site plan appeal.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a reduced parking space depth of 4.79 metres, where 5.4 metres is required, to facilitate a driveway widening.

The City presented uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variance failed the four tests under the Planning Act, as it would result in vehicles encroaching onto the municipal sidewalk, impacting pedestrian safety and the streetscape.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence, found the variance did not meet the four tests, and dismissed the appeal.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriation Act, the respondent municipality requested that the scheduled hearing dates be vacated pending the resolution of a related civil action concerning title to the expropriated property.

The claimants opposed the request, arguing it would cause prejudice and that the civil action lacked merit.

The Tribunal found that the request raised a jurisdictional question regarding title that could not be adequately addressed without a formal motion.

The Tribunal directed the parties to bring a motion in writing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation arising from the expropriation of parts of a property by Metrolinx for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

The parties advised they intended to file further amended pleadings and provided a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for November 2025.

The bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered appeals by Cytec Canada Inc. and 2610832 Ontario Inc. regarding the City of Niagara Falls' By-law 2023-078 and Official Plan Amendment 147, which relate to the conversion of employment lands.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together sequentially in a three-phase hearing and scheduled dates for potential motions and the merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated April 16, 2024.

The amendment corrected the municipality name in the Title of Proceedings and paragraph 1 from Brampton to Caledon.

In all other respects, the original decision remained the same.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in a previous decision regarding an expropriation by the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The amendments corrected the Title of Proceedings to include all claimants and accurately reflect the municipality as Caledon, and revised paragraph 1 to clarify that the proceeding was the first Case Management Conference for the property.

The claimants sought compensation under the Expropriation Act following the expropriation of their property by the municipality for parkland.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal ratified a consent Procedural Order, directed the parties to explore Tribunal-assisted mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and an eight-day Merit Hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation by the respondent municipality of a property owned by the claimants.

The parties expected to have settlement discussions and potentially request mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing commencing April 8, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the case.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation by the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The parties requested to schedule a hearing date and finalize a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing commencing March 31, 2025, and issued the requested Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the case.

Casey House Inc. requested to remove its Participant status and be granted Party status in an appeal regarding development applications for a 58-storey residential building.

Casey House argued that an agreement between the appellant and an adjacent developer regarding setbacks would negatively impact its own property's redevelopment potential.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that Casey House raised genuine land use planning concerns and that its inclusion as a Party was necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues without causing substantial prejudice to the other parties.

The plaintiff, an auction business, brought an action for defamation against the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) regarding statements made about the plaintiff's relationship with the federal government in selling seized gemstones.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the statements related to matters of public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show its claims had substantial merit against the Crown Defendants, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences (including qualified privilege and justification), and failed to establish that the harm it suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding a claim for disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act following the expropriation of the claimant's lands.

The parties had already resolved the market value compensation.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, scheduled a status hearing, and set dates for a seven-day video hearing on the merits.

Jayco, Inc. appealed the dismissal of its action against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Jayco sought recovery of legal costs and interest incurred while successfully contesting a GST/HST assessment.

The claims were based on theories of common law indemnity (as a statutory agent under the Excise Tax Act) and private law duty of care (negligence) owed by the CRA during an audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that no common law right to indemnity exists for statutory agents in this context, nor does the CRA owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers during administrative audits, distinguishing such audits from criminal investigations.