Kevin Patrick Butler

The plaintiffs brought a motion to transfer four Small Claims Court actions to the Superior Court of Justice and consolidate them with a newly commenced Superior Court action seeking injunctive relief.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing it was an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show their initial choice of Small Claims Court was a mistake or that a just result could not be obtained there.

The court stayed the Superior Court action pending the outcome of the Small Claims Court trial, noting that if the plaintiffs are successful and damages are inadequate, they may seek to lift the stay for injunctive relief.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondent, sought a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of a curb wall constructed of concrete blocks along the respondent’s driveway, alleging it constituted a private nuisance and violated City of Ottawa by-laws.

The court found that the respondent was not in breach of the relevant by-laws and that the applicants failed to prove substantial and unreasonable interference with their property.

The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Xtreme Trampoline Park Inc. and XTP Holdings Inc., brought an oppression remedy application against the majority shareholder, Sixin Wei, alleging he denied them access to financial records, withheld proceeds from a property sale, and surreptitiously obtained funds held in trust.

The court found Mr. Wei's conduct oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and unfairly disregarded the applicants' reasonable expectations regarding financial transparency and distribution of sale proceeds.

The court ordered Mr. Wei to provide full access to accounting records, a detailed accounting of funds, and to preserve a significant portion of the disputed funds in an interest-bearing account pending further agreement or court order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Spire Properties Ltd. for the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 24-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reported productive strides in narrowing the issues but requested more time.

On consent, the Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and further scope the issues list.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and Site Plan approval to permit the development of 48 stacked townhomes.

This document contains only the proceeding header and lists the parties and counsel.

The appellants appealed the City of London's adoption of the Masonville Secondary Plan.

The parties reached a settlement and proposed modifications to the Secondary Plan addressing parkland dedication, phased developments, and other site-specific matters for the appellants' commercial properties.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with The London Plan.

The Tribunal approved the modifications on consent.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of King to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications for a mid-rise residential and commercial development.

Following a prior decision endorsing a settlement, the Tribunal held a written hearing to consider the finalized site plan and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the site plan application consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and granted interim approval of the site plan, withholding the final order until the site plan agreement is executed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a discovery dispute, seeking to exclude one co-defendant from the virtual discovery of the other and requesting costs thrown away for previously cancelled discoveries.

The court found that the risks of improper collaboration are heightened during virtual discoveries when co-defendants are in the same location without counsel present.

The court ordered that the co-defendants be examined in the absence of each other.

The request for costs thrown away was denied due to both counsel's failure to communicate effectively and agree on a discovery plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical errors in a previous decision regarding an appeal for official plan and zoning by-law amendments in the Township of King.

The amendment added an omitted appearance for a party and corrected the date for witness statements in the attached Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of King and Region of York to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit 48 stacked townhomes.

At this second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order, including the issues list and timeline for the exchange of witness lists, and scheduled a 15-day video hearing.

The applicant sought court approval for a proposed $6,000 settlement regarding a dog bite injury sustained by a seven-year-old minor.

The court identified several deficiencies in the application record, including improper service on the unrepresented respondent, insufficient evidence of the settlement terms, incorrect calculation of the contingency fee, and failure to request an order dispensing with an oral hearing.

The court directed the applicant to file additional materials to address these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service discriminated against her on the basis of race and perceived disability.

The applicant claimed that a police report describing her as a 'black woman' and referencing public mischief was generated because the police perceived her to have a mental illness.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that could establish a link between the police report and her race or perceived disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.