Adam Patel

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the Phase 2 hearing on the merits regarding appeals by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Phase 2 hearing was scheduled for five days commencing June 22, 2026, and the procedural order set out the key dates for the exchange of witness statements, expert meetings, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order and scheduled a two-phase merit hearing to commence in June and December 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Magnum General Contracting Inc. against the Township of Scugog for failing to make decisions on Site Plan Approval and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The Tribunal approved the final draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence on May 26, 2025, by video.

The City of Pickering brought a motion requesting partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 (OPA 38), which facilitates redevelopment and intensification along the Kingston Road Corridor.

Several site-specific appeals had been filed against OPA 38.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the unappealed portions of OPA 38 are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conform to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and approved OPA 38 in part, noting that this partial approval would not prejudice the remaining site-specific appeals.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against Official Plan Amendment 126 to update the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in Clarington.

The Tribunal granted party status to Brookhill North Landowners Inc. and confirmed statutory party status for the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Susan Seger as she did not make oral or written submissions prior to the adoption of the plan, and directed that any challenges to the validity of the remaining appeals must be brought by motion.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a warehouse distribution centre in the Town of Whitby.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Durham and NRD Dundas Limited, and participant status to several individuals, on consent.

A six-day merit hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Amendment No. 126.

The appellants, owners of properties on Brock Street North, appealed the OPA to protect their respective mixed-use redevelopment proposals.

Bara Group (Whitby) Inc. requested and was granted party status.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 28, 2024, to allow the parties further time for dialogue and to present options to Town Council.

The plaintiff was successful on a motion for a status hearing and successfully defended the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff sought costs of $36,301.47 on a substantial indemnity basis or $20,220.19 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had required an indulgence from the court to proceed with the action due to delay, and had improperly set the matter down for trial without a status hearing.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff, a creditor of a bankrupt lawyer, sought to proceed with an action to collect a debt allegedly owed by the defendant, a former client of the lawyer.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action for delay, citing the 11.5 years since the action commenced.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate, it was excusable due to the lawyer's bankruptcy and the time required for the plaintiff to obtain a section 38 order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court also found no substantial risk to a fair trial, as relevant documents and witnesses were available.

The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the action was allowed to proceed.