Jonathan Marun-Batista

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the proceeding regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling a five-day video hearing to commence on March 22, 2027, and setting out key procedural dates for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, and the exchange of witness statements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment introducing interim policies for Major Transit Station Areas, and the new City Official Plan.

The City provided a status update on ongoing settlement negotiations and proposed future motions.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of consolidating the appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 8, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 64-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included dismantling and reconstructing a 20-storey heritage building using salvaged materials.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning and heritage evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a two-storey Buddhist temple.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal with increased parking and a redesigned building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, York Region Official Plan, and local planning documents.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential development in Brampton.

On consent, the Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to an adjacent property owner.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 13-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment by the City of Brampton to facilitate a mixed-use residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the applicant could not attend due to a religious holiday.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC and scheduled a second CMC to consider party status requests and review the draft procedural order.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a two-storey place of worship.

Following a productive Tribunal-led mediation, the parties requested additional hearing dates to allow for continued mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing, which may be converted to a settlement hearing if a resolution is reached, and directed the filing of a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a 48-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and a neighbourhood association, and participant status to a condominium corporation.

A 9-day hearing was scheduled for March 2026.

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests to substitute parties in appeals concerning a proposed 49-storey residential building in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to substitute Carlyle Young Maitland GP Inc. as the Appellant, as it had acquired the subject property.

The Tribunal also granted the request to substitute OEF Village Green Nominee Inc. as a party in place of Greenrock, following OEF's acquisition of adjacent lands.

Finally, the Tribunal cancelled a previously scheduled hearing and set an accelerated written hearing date to consider a settlement offer accepted by City Council.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation after a farmhouse on a property purchased from the defendants was destroyed by fire before closing.

The court found no contractual obligation for the defendants to insure the property, rebuild the farmhouse, or abate the purchase price, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Wile v. Cook.

The misrepresentation claim lacked sufficient particulars as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The statement of claim was struck out, but with leave to amend.