Ilia Valitsky

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 294 and a site-specific Official Plan Amendment for the Yorkdale Shopping Centre property.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner, directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 10-day merits hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered that the matters be heard together.

At a Case Management Conference, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry brought a motion under s. 17(39)(b) of the Planning Act to bring into force and effect undisputed land use designations in its Comprehensive Official Plan across five townships.

The motion followed extensive discussions resolving appeals regarding the designation of lands as Agricultural Resource Lands versus Rural District.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised mapping was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the undisputed schedules into force.

The Tribunal also granted a motion for directions clarifying that an appellant's appeal sought an aggregate reserve designation rather than an agricultural one.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the Plaintiffs to amend their Statement of Claim, which was largely opposed by the Municipality.

The Municipality was entirely successful in opposing the amendments related to a new cause of action.

The court found the Municipality was entitled to partial indemnity costs as the successful party.

After reviewing the submissions and considering factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $4567.19, representing 66% of the Municipality's claimed partial indemnity costs, payable by the Plaintiffs to the Municipality.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim, which originally sought damages for flooding allegedly caused by the defendant municipality's improper installation of a culvert.

The proposed amendments sought to add a new cause of action regarding a boundary dispute over a driveway.

The municipality consented to amendments related to the culvert but opposed those related to the boundary dispute.

The court dismissed the contested amendments, finding they constituted an entirely new cause of action that would unduly delay the trial and cause non-compensable prejudice to the municipality.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to extend the time to review an order of a single judge under Rule 61.16(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action involved allegations of solicitor negligence against the respondents.

The court reviewed the extensive procedural history, noting numerous unpaid costs orders against the appellant and her failure to attend the previous motion.

Applying the four-part test for an extension of time, the court found the appellant failed to explain her delay, the respondents had suffered prejudice, and the intended review lacked merit.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order striking his fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The motion judge had found the claim, which alleged conspiracy, deceit, negligence, and professional misconduct, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the pleading was irreparably deficient for failing to plead material facts in support of the serious allegations advanced.

The plaintiff, Oasis Addiction Recovery Society, brought a motion for judgment to enforce an accepted offer to settle made by the defendants, Upper Canada 1ST Financial Group Inc. and Steve Erdelyi.

While both parties agreed to enforce the settlement, they disputed the interpretation of an indemnity clause, specifically the phrase "amounts paid to date." The plaintiff argued for a lower indemnity amount based on payments made directly to it, while the defendants contended for a higher amount including payments made to a third party (ICAN) before the loan transfer.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, considering the surrounding circumstances, and found in favour of the defendants' interpretation, obliging the plaintiff to provide an indemnity for the higher amount.