Kristie Jennings

Case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for two motions for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motions to proceed by videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) brought a stated case to the Divisional Court asking whether parties to a first-level appeal under s. 38(1) of the Local Planning Appeal Act, 2017 have the right to cross-examine witnesses.

The majority of the Divisional Court held that the term 'examine' in s. 42(3)(b) of the Act and s. 3 of O. Reg. 102/18 includes cross-examination.

Therefore, parties are precluded from cross-examining witnesses at an oral hearing or cross-examining affiants prior to a hearing.

The Court found that the legislature intended to create an expeditious, investigative process where the Tribunal controls the evidence, expressly overriding the common law right to cross-examination.

Six proposed intervenors brought motions for leave to intervene in a stated case before the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017.

The stated case concerns the Tribunal's power to call evidence and permit cross-examination in planning appeals.

The applicants and respondents generally did not oppose the interventions, provided they did not delay the proceedings.

One proposed intervenor, the Toronto Port Authority, also sought to be added as a party to obtain independent appeal rights.

The court granted intervenor status to all six proposed intervenors, finding they had a real interest and could make useful and distinct contributions.

However, the court denied the Toronto Port Authority's request for party status, concluding that granting it would unduly delay the determination of the main parties' rights.

This case is a re-hearing on damages following a Divisional Court decision that remitted the matter back to the trial judge for a proper valuation of the plaintiff's 25% share interest in the defendant company, My Insurance Brokerage (MIB), after a breach of contract.

The court assessed conflicting expert evidence on share valuation, utilizing both income/cash flow and market multiple methods.

The plaintiff's expert's opinion was approached with caution due to an undisclosed professional relationship and unrealistic assumptions regarding minority discount and the impact of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

While generally preferring the defendant's expert's methodology, the court found an error in valuing MIB as a start-up and ordered an upward adjustment to the cash flow multiple.

The final fair market value of the shares was to be determined as the midpoint between the recalculated income/cash flow valuation and the market method valuation.