Kristie Jennings

The appellants (UDG) appealed a motion judge's decision to permanently stay their Ontario proceeding in favour of ongoing litigation in Singapore and Dubai.

UDG had commenced the Ontario action seeking declarations against the respondents (TAP), effectively advancing as claims the same allegations they made as defences in the foreign proceedings.

The motion judge found that a related loan involving Rutmet was distinct from UDG's loans and that UDG's Ontario action was an attempt to gain a jurisdictional advantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her fact-finding, exercise of discretion, or analysis of attornment and forum selection clauses.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ontario proceedings remained stayed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 70-unit townhouse development on a former tannery site.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard Phase 2 of appeals regarding the Yonge and Bernard Key Development Area (KDA) Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law in the City of Richmond Hill.

The hearing focused on site-specific development applications and policies for the eastern quadrants and the Di Pede lands in the northwest quadrant.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed modifications, which were supported by expert planning, transportation, and environmental evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Greenway System designation and natural hazard buffer requirements for the northeast quadrant, dismissing the appeals of North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), which failed to call any evidence.

All other appeals were dismissed, bringing the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law into effect for the remaining lands.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 14-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring business concerned with compatibility.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing and directed the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list following an anticipated direction report from City council.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 49-storey residential development with retail at-grade on a site containing an existing 30-storey rental apartment building.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were inappropriate and the unit mix did not meet guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development promotes efficient use of land, is transit-supportive, accommodates an appropriate mix of uses, and conforms to the Official Plan, Growth Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the height and podium design would not have unacceptable adverse impacts and that the unit mix provided functional family-sized units.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

A party requested that the scheduling of a hearing be deferred due to alleged jurisdictional issues related to an incomplete environmental assessment and ongoing litigation.

The Tribunal found that the party must bring a formal written motion to determine the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing on the merits and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The new owner of a subject property brought a motion to be substituted as the appellant in appeals originally filed by a now-bankrupt developer regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The municipality and conservation authority brought a joint motion to dismiss the appeals due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the original appellant did not have a valid appeal of the new Official Plan because it failed to make the required statutory submissions.

The Tribunal denied the substitution motion, finding that allowing the new owner to carry on the delayed appeals under an outdated planning policy framework would cause prejudice to the parties and the public interest that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of delay.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals.

Due to ongoing court proceedings and the recent circulation of updated documents, the Tribunal deferred the finalization of the Issues List and the scheduling of the hearing on the merits to a second Case Management Conference.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to intervene from three public interest organizations (1492 Windsor Law Coalition, Aboriginal Legal Services, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association) in an appeal concerning the striking of an Indigenous appellant's pleadings and a substantial costs award in an injunction proceeding related to a land dispute.

The motions judge had found the appellant in contempt of court.

The Court dismissed all motions for intervention, finding that 1492 WLC and ALS's submissions inappropriately expanded the legal issues on appeal by focusing on injunctions, and CCLA's submissions largely overlapped with the appellant's arguments.

The court concluded that the appellant could adequately address the Indigenous perspective.

No costs were awarded against the proposed interveners.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan, Bromont Homes Inc. sought clarification on whether the urban settlement boundary for Lindsay remained a live issue for the upcoming Phase 2 Hearing.

The City and other parties argued the issue was settled and Bromont should have appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that previous orders explicitly preserved Bromont's right to argue against the boundary adjustment and ordered that the issue will be adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.

The Requestors sought a review of a prior Tribunal decision granting minor variances and provisional consent to the Applicant, alleging they did not receive notice of the appeals or the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Requestors to file motion materials to substantiate their claims.

Despite multiple notices and extensions, the Requestors failed to file the required materials and did not attend the scheduled video hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review due to non-compliance, leaving the original decision in force.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding outstanding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 48.

The Tribunal approved a settlement between Loblaws Properties Limited and the City, modifying urban design policies to provide flexibility for building entrances and facades.

The Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning and were consistent with provincial policies.

A procedural order was also issued for the remaining appeal by Abode Varsity Living Inc. concerning purpose-built student housing policies.

The City of Brampton brought a motion on consent seeking modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 (OPA No. 105) regarding the Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan Area.

The City sought to modify the boundaries of the natural heritage system in the Rainbow Creek corridor to align with the Rainbow Creek Master Environmental Servicing Plan Addendum, and to approve OPA No. 105 for specific lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and having regard to matters of provincial interest.

The Tribunal granted the motion and scheduled a Case Management Conference for remaining appeals.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 28-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (CMC) where it granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham and participant status to several individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second CMC for September 27, 2021.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 and Orlando Corporation's appeals concerning the City's failure to approve its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion to modify the Official Plan Amendment, and Orlando Corporation announced a proposed settlement of its zoning appeal, subject to the City's motion.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the filing of motion and settlement materials and scheduled a telephone conference hearing to consider both matters.

The appellants built a retaining wall on a neighbour's property without a permit from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The neighbour (Lorne Park Estates Association) pleaded guilty to provincial offences related to the wall.

The appellants sought to intervene in the Association's sentencing to argue against the wall's removal, but their application was dismissed by the justice of the peace.

The Superior Court dismissed their certiorari application to quash this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in denying intervener status, as intervention in quasi-criminal sentencing is rare and it would be unfair to allow third parties to interpose themselves against a joint submission by the Crown and accused.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeals did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with standard practice, no reasons were provided.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion on the eve of trial to compel the defendant employer to produce communications between its internal legal counsel and a third-party workplace investigator.

The defendant argued the motion was barred by Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial, and asserted privilege over the documents.

The court held that leave was not required because the motion sought to enforce a prior production order.

The court further rejected the defendant's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the production of the withheld communications within five days.