James Cooke

The appellants appealed a condition imposed by the Town of Leamington on a consent to sever application, which required the closure of access to a county road.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing and set deadlines for the submission of additional traffic study evidence.

The parties also indicated an intention to seek Tribunal-led mediation once the evidence is submitted.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the interior lot line setback for a new warehouse on an agricultural property used for a greenhouse operation.

The municipality did not oppose the appeal and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The variance was deemed minor and desirable as the interior lot lines would eventually be eliminated once a planned waste treatment facility was installed and the properties consolidated.

The appeal was allowed and the minor variance was granted.

The applicant appealed the Town of Amherstburg Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and a minor variance for a property on North Street.

The applications sought to create a new lot for a semi-detached dwelling and requested relief for driveway width.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated ongoing discussions to resolve the issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a status hearing regarding a land compensation claim for an expropriation in the Town of Tecumseh.

The Ministry of Transportation indicated that a settlement with the claimant was imminent.

The Tribunal scheduled a further status hearing for September 2022, directing the parties to either convert it to a settlement hearing or be prepared to set hearing dates and file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if no settlement is reached.

The parties engaged in an international commercial arbitration regarding a contract for the sale of tomatoes.

The arbitrator awarded the respondent $45,516.95 USD.

The applicant sought to set aside the award, initially under the Arbitration Act, and later attempted to rely on a basket clause to seek relief under the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA) after the three-month limitation period expired.

The court held that the applicant could not use a basket clause to assert a new cause of action out of time.

Furthermore, the court found that even if the ICAA applied, the arbitrator's alleged errors in interpreting trade terms did not conflict with the public policy of Ontario.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed, and the cross-application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The appellant commenced construction lien and breach of trust actions that were dismissed for delay at a status hearing after more than 13 years.

The appellant moved to set aside the dismissal, arguing its former counsel had misled it about the progress of the actions.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a commercial plaintiff has an obligation to supervise its counsel and move its actions forward expeditiously.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside orders dismissing several construction lien and related breach of trust actions for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the Reid factors governing relief from dismissal orders under Rule 37.14 and considered whether the delay was adequately explained, whether the missed deadlines were inadvertent, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether reinstatement would prejudice the defendants.

The court found the litigation delay was extreme and largely attributable to repeated failures by the plaintiff’s former counsel to comply with court‑ordered timelines, coupled with insufficient oversight by the plaintiff.

Although the motion to set aside was brought promptly once the dismissal became known, the delay was not inadvertent and reinstatement would cause real prejudice given the nature of lien and trust claims.

Applying a contextual approach, the court concluded the balance favoured finality and refused to set aside the dismissal orders.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission ordered the immediate suspension of the licenses of standardbred drivers Kevin Wallis and Gene Piroski, alleging their participation in a race fixing conspiracy with a known gambler.

The Administration's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including wagering patterns, race video analysis by a racing judge, and hearsay statements from another driver.

The Commission found the race analysis evidence to be flawed and contradicted by independent experts, and the hearsay statements to be patently unreliable.

Concluding that the Administration failed to provide clear, cogent, and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, the Commission terminated the suspensions and rescinded the proposed orders.