Charles Loopstra

The appellant appealed a by-law passed by the City of Vaughan designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were reviewing minutes of settlement and requested additional time to finalize an agreement.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the parties to provide a status update by June 15, 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the merit hearing, the parties agreed they were not ready to proceed due to outstanding jurisdictional issues and the pending preparation of a revised cultural heritage evaluation report that could lead to a settlement.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and scheduled a case management conference.

The Claimants brought a motion for a declaration that an offer of compensation made by the Ministry of Transportation under section 25(1)(a) of the Expropriations Act in 2011 became a binding contract when accepted by the Claimants in 2021, despite the Ministry's attempt to withdraw and substitute the offer in 2013.

The Tribunal found that the Expropriations Act does not permit an expropriating authority to withdraw or rescind a section 25(1)(a) offer.

Furthermore, the Ministry's substituted offer was invalid as it was not accompanied by an appraisal report as required by section 25(2).

The Tribunal ordered that the original offer remained in effect, was validly accepted, and directed the Ministry to pay the net offer amount plus interest and costs.

The applicants applied under the Boundaries Act to confirm the boundaries of their waterfront property, specifically the boundary dividing flooded lands between their parcel and the objectors' abutting parcel.

The flooded lands were added to the upland parcels by a 1967 Certificate of Correction.

The applicants' surveyor proposed a boundary based on the location of an existing dock, while the objectors' surveyor proposed extending the existing straight-line boundary.

The Deputy Director of Titles rejected both approaches, finding that the applicants' proposed line was arbitrary and the objectors' proposed line would inequitably cut off the applicants' riparian access.

The Deputy Director confirmed a boundary set radially from the controlled high water mark, providing an equitable division that respected the original shoreline configuration and maintained riparian rights.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability after a Justice of the Peace denied his request for an adjournment of a traffic court trial and convicted him in absentia.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the complaint was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity, which protects judicial decision-makers from legal proceedings based on their adjudicative actions.

The City of Brockville brought a motion for an order extending the time to appeal the 2003 through 2012 property assessments of its wastewater treatment facility, alleging a palpable error in the building's recorded height.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while section 40.1 of the Assessment Act allows for the correction of palpable errors without a limitation period, the moving party failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that the error existed for the taxation years in question.

The Board also noted that it lacks the jurisdiction to apply the equitable doctrine of laches.