Alessia Petricone-Westwood

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take preventive measures regarding the off-site discharge of contaminated stormwater from a brownfield property.

The Appellants argued that the Director lacked jurisdiction because there was no evidence of an actual adverse effect or actual impairment of water quality.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act permit preventive measures orders where there is a potential for adverse effects or impairment.

The Tribunal found the site to be highly contaminated, with stormwater exceeding aquatic life guideline values for contaminants like hexavalent chromium by several orders of magnitude, and confirmed the Director's Order in its entirety.

The Appellants brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing of their appeal of a Director's Order regarding sewage works on their property.

They sought a three-month adjournment to allow time to complete and submit an amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application, which they argued would resolve the issues in dispute.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing that the ECA process is separate from the appeal of the Order and that previous adjournments had not resulted in a resolution.

The Tribunal applied the criteria for adjournments and found no serious consequences or prejudice to the Appellants if the hearing proceeded, as they could pursue the ECA concurrently.

Noting the history of previous adjournments and the public interest in an expeditious resolution, the Tribunal denied the motion to adjourn.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order relating to sewage works, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing to allow time for the Director to consider an amended Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal directed that the adjournment request be heard via a written motion and approved a revised Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to resolve inadequacies in existing sewage works on a property with a history of industrial uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that their experts were engaged in productive discussions and requested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence in September 2025, which will be vacated if mediation is successful, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to address inadequate sewage works and prevent the discharge of contaminants from the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to allow their respective experts to continue productive discussions towards a long-term plan for the property.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding sewage works.

Following a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also determined the order of evidence, directing the appellants to present their case first.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Ministry decision affirming the acceptance of a competitor's aggregate permit application as complete.

The applicant argued the Ministry unreasonably justified its acceptance of the competitor's application and failed to concurrently reconsider the applicant's own application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry provided a reasoned explanation for departing from its policies regarding site visits and archaeological checklists, and that concurrent reconsideration was not required to meet the reasonableness standard.

The applicant, owner of the subject property, brought a motion for party status in an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a hotel on its lands.

The appellants, adjacent industrial landowners, opposed the motion on the basis that it was brought late, just before a scheduled settlement hearing.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Oakville (Town), Re and found that the applicant had a direct interest, its participation would serve the public interest, and denying status would cause it significant prejudice.

The motion for party status was granted.

Following a trial where plaintiffs obtained $40,000 in damages and injunctive relief, this endorsement addresses costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $100,000 in costs, while defendants argued for proportionality given the damages awarded were within Simplified Procedure limits.

The court considered the plaintiffs' primary objective of injunctive relief, which necessitated the ordinary procedure, and their unaccepted offers to settle.

Despite the high costs relative to damages, the court found the plaintiffs' litigation conduct reasonable and awarded them $90,000 in all-inclusive costs, declining substantial indemnity but recognizing the legitimacy of the expenses incurred.

The plaintiffs sued their neighbours for nuisance arising from the installation and use of an outdoor wood-fired boiler that emitted noxious smoke and odours onto their property.

Prior to trial, the defendants agreed to remove the boiler and consented to an injunction prohibiting its future use, leaving only the assessment of damages to be tried.

The court rejected the defendants' preliminary arguments that the action was barred by res judicata from a discontinued Small Claims Court claim and that no actionable nuisance was established.

Finding that the smoke caused a serious and persistent interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, the court awarded general damages of $20,000 to each plaintiff.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry deeming a competing company's aggregate permit application complete.

The Ministry processes applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

The applicant argued the competing application was incomplete as it failed to meet the requirements of the Provincial Standards and Ministry Policies regarding environmental and cultural heritage reports.

The Divisional Court found the Ministry's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its own mandatory policies when assessing completeness.

The decision was quashed, but the court declined to issue an order of mandamus, instead remitting the matter back to the Ministry for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held a video hearing regarding appeals against a zoning by-law passed by the Town of Whitby.

The Applicant, who owned the subject property, had missed a previous Case Management Conference due to technical difficulties and was excluded from subsequent settlement discussions between the Appellants and the Town.

The Applicant retained new counsel and indicated an intent to bring a motion for party status and an adjournment.

The Tribunal adjourned the scheduled settlement hearing and set a timetable for the filing of motion materials regarding the Applicant's request for party status.

The appellants appealed the passing of a zoning by-law by the Town of Whitby.

During a telephone conference call, the parties advised the Tribunal that technical work was nearing completion and requested the scheduling of a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing and provided directions for the submission of settlement materials.

The appellants appealed the Town of Whitby's passing of a zoning by-law that would permit the construction of two hotels on a property located near industrial uses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellants expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation to address concerns regarding noise, air quality, dust, and visual impacts on their industrial operations.

The Tribunal agreed that mediation had merit and scheduled a further Telephone Conference Call to receive an update on potential mediation and to establish an Issues List and Procedural Order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order to permit them to obtain soil and groundwater samples from a neighbouring property owned by a non-party, after the action had been set down for trial.

The plaintiffs sought the samples to allow their expert to perform forensic environmental testing to respond to the defendants' expert reports regarding PCB contamination.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding the expert's need for additional sampling constituted an unexpected change in circumstances.

The court also granted the inspection order, concluding that the testing would be useful and probative in determining whether the contaminants on the plaintiffs' property originated from the neighbouring property.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages after Ms. Armstrong, a prospective employee, suffered an L4 vertebrae burst fracture while demonstrating her ability to hitch a U-Haul trailer during a job interview at the defendants' garage.

The trial proceeded on the issue of liability only.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to Ms. Armstrong, both as occupiers of the premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and as a quasi-employer.

However, the court concluded that the defendants did not breach the standard of care, as the injury was not reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances, including Ms. Armstrong's assurances of her lifting capabilities and the lack of evidence of industry standards or obvious negligence.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant suffered catastrophic injuries in a 2010 motorcycle accident and sought attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The respondent insurer argued that the applicant's claims were subject to the definition of 'incurred expense' and the economic loss limitations for family care providers introduced in the SABS-2010 and its 2014 amendments.

The Tribunal held that because the accident occurred prior to September 1, 2010, the applicant's entitlement to and the quantum of benefits are governed by the 1996 Schedule.

The SABS-2010 definition of 'incurred expense' and its subsequent amendments limiting attendant care to the provider's economic loss do not apply retrospectively to this claim.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion to oppose confirmation of an assessment officer's certificate, which ordered him to refund $13,308.55 to his former clients.

The clients had retained the lawyer under a block fee agreement but terminated the retainer before trial.

The assessment officer reduced the lawyer's final account and deducted the full amount of the original retainer paid.

The court found no procedural unfairness in the assessment hearing but held that the assessment officer erred in principle by applying the full original retainer against the final account, as an earlier interim account had not been referred for assessment.

The court substituted an order requiring the lawyer to refund $6,947.04.