Brent Harasym

The owners of a residential property brought a motion to declare a construction lien expired and to vacate its registration.

The general contractor had registered a lien for $201,356, claiming the last day of work was August 15, 2019.

The court found that the original renovation contract was terminated on June 16, 2019, and replaced with a new oral agreement.

The court further determined that the contractor abandoned the work under the new agreement on August 7, 2019.

Because the lien was registered more than 60 days after the abandonment, it had expired.

The motion was granted and the lien was ordered vacated.

The appellants appealed an order issued by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requiring them to pay $207,477.88 for remedial work related to a spill.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange relevant documents by specified dates and directed them to advise if they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The applicant municipality sought a declaration that the respondent developer did not hold an option to purchase a block of municipal land and an order deleting a Notice of Option to Purchase from title.

The court found that the respondent's purchase right was a personal right akin to a right of first refusal, not an equitable interest in land, because the municipality retained the right to determine if it required the land for its own purposes.

Although the respondent's interest was capable of being registered on title under the Land Titles Act, the specific Notice of Option to Purchase was ordered deleted because it gave notice of an interest the respondent did not possess.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate four properties.

The community group SORE Association sought party status, which the objectors opposed.

The Board granted SORE party status, finding it had a genuine interest, would make a useful contribution, and its addition would not cause prejudice or delay.

The Board also ordered concurrent hearings for the four related proceedings and directed the scheduling of a pre-hearing settlement conference.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his application to include new allegations of discriminatory comments and text messages regarding his disability, which he claimed to have discovered after filing the initial application.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the new allegations were substantial, late, and untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that evidence of untimely allegations may be admissible as background context, and left the determination of whether the new allegations constituted separate, timely incidents of discrimination to the adjudicator hearing the merits.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, stating he had been bedridden for eight weeks and was unable to file his hearing documents.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal noted that despite the applicant's illness, there remained sufficient time for him to file his documents prior to the hearing, and issued directions for him to do so.