P. Krysiak

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential development with buildings ranging from 3 to 20 storeys.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represent good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified OPA and ZBA.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated November 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to joint submissions, the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan to facilitate a medium-density mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

Prior to a scheduled settlement hearing, a numbered company filed late materials raising grading and drainage concerns and sought Party status for related site plan and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applicant and the City opposed Party status due to the late filing.

The Tribunal denied Party status, finding that further delay would prejudice the applicant, but permitted the numbered company to file a Participant Status Request Form limited to its drainage and grading concerns.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal abridged the notice period for certain addresses, granted participant status to two individuals, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing for October 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision issued on May 28, 2024.

The amendment updated the video hearing information, including the GoTo Meeting link and access codes.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Rymal East Development Corp. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The Tribunal scheduled an eight-day video hearing to commence on July 22, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order with an approved Issues List.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Hamilton's non-decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications for a 630-unit residential development.

A previously scheduled settlement hearing was delayed due to a cyber security attack on the City.

The parties requested additional time for document review and sought to schedule a new half-day settlement hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled the settlement hearing for May 27, 2024.

The plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that his employment with the defendant municipality was permanent and indefinite despite being hired under a contract with an expected duration of two years.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract that was extended four times before expiring.

The court found no ambiguity in the employment agreement or the extension notices, concluding that the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract.

As the contract simply expired, there was no wrongful dismissal, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for careless driving from Provincial Offences Court.

The appeal raised three grounds: (1) the Justice of the Peace erred in refusing an adjournment to obtain disclosure; (2) there was a breach of the right to a fair trial due to non-disclosure; and (3) the prosecution failed to establish all elements of careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the adjournment was properly refused, the trial was fair despite disclosure issues, and the circumstantial evidence supported the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking authorization to enter the defendants’ property to remediate a failing retaining wall previously constructed pursuant to court orders arising from a nuisance dispute involving runoff and soil movement between adjacent properties.

Applying the injunctive relief framework from R.J.R. – MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Att.-Gen.), the court found a serious issue regarding the plaintiffs’ right to prevent soil and debris flowing from the defendants’ property, irreparable harm if the wall collapsed, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

Although the current structural failure was not directly caused by the defendants, the court held they remained ultimately responsible due to their prior alteration of land elevation and delays in remedying the problem.

The court authorized the plaintiffs to undertake remedial work and ordered the defendants to pay outstanding amounts owed under a prior order, with further provisions governing engineering oversight if warranty coverage failed.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid progress payments and extras on a home renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for the cost of completing the work, correcting deficiencies, and delay damages, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the job.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract by refusing to pay a progress invoice and failing to negotiate reasonably.

The court awarded the plaintiff $19,978, calculated by taking the balance owed on the contract and extras, less credits to the defendants for incomplete and deficient work.

The plaintiffs brought a motion relating to the implementation and costs of a court-ordered construction project designed to remedy drainage and property impacts caused by alterations to neighbouring land.

The court reviewed affidavits from engineers addressing cost increases associated with implementing the approved design plan.

It accepted evidence that increased costs arose primarily from unforeseen soil conditions and confirmed that construction costs had been properly segregated from litigation costs as previously ordered.

The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the reasons for the cost overruns and that the project had been completed despite interference by the defendant.

The motion was granted as requested, with payment directed to be held in trust for the contractor and engineer.

Neighbouring property owners were engaged in protracted litigation concerning drainage and elevation changes caused by fill placed on the defendants’ property.

Earlier court orders required the construction of a retaining wall according to an agreed engineering design, with costs to be borne by the defendants.

After construction was completed, the plaintiffs sought payment of outstanding balances to the contractor and engineer from funds held in court and an order requiring the defendants to pay the remaining amount.

The defendants argued the wall was built according to a materially different plan than the one approved by court order and consent.

The court held that the work had proceeded without prior approval despite deviations from the approved design and costs exceeding the estimates, and required further affidavit evidence from the supervising engineer addressing the cost impact of those deviations before determining the remaining issues.

An employee sought a court order compelling payment of $150,000 from his employer’s deferred profit sharing plan due to alleged financial hardship.

The employer argued that it was not the proper respondent because the plan trustee administered the plan and that the employee did not meet the plan’s pre‑retirement withdrawal criteria.

The court held that only the trustee could effect payment and that the employee’s plan holdings did not qualify for pre‑retirement withdrawal under the governing trust deed.

The provision allowing trustees to distribute plan property pursuant to a court order did not grant a broad discretionary power to order payment outside the plan’s terms.

The court declined to interfere with the trustee’s discretion and dismissed the application.

Multiple motions arose from a long-running property drainage dispute following earlier orders requiring implementation of a drainage design.

The defendant initially brought a motion to set aside or vary prior orders but abandoned it at the hearing, while the plaintiffs sought dismissal of that motion, payment out of funds held in court to implement engineering work, and restrictions on further motions by the defendant.

The court confirmed that its role was limited to implementing the previously ordered design or a variation agreed upon by the parties and ordered that the drainage work proceed under the agreed Pearson design.

Funds already paid into court were ordered paid out to the plaintiffs for construction costs, and the defendant was directed to pay an additional amount into court subject to documentation of implementation expenses.

The court also required the defendant to obtain leave before bringing any further motions.

Following a summary judgment motion and multiple related motions in a civil action alleging defamation and several other torts, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

Most of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on summary judgment except for defamation, and the court found that the plaintiff’s pleadings were vague and unsupported by evidence.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s litigation conduct, including verbose and inflammatory materials, unnecessary motions, and personal attacks against opposing counsel.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis for the defendants’ summary judgment motion and on a full indemnity basis for certain motions brought by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also received limited partial indemnity costs for earlier attendances, which were set off against the larger amounts owed to the defendants.

Following a long-running dispute concerning compliance with a prior court order, the matter returned to the court after cross-motions and prior contempt proceedings.

The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an earlier judgment while the defendants attempted to negotiate a compromise regarding implementation.

Although the court facilitated judicial ADR in hopes the parties’ engineers could reach a practical solution, no agreement was reached until the defendants ultimately accepted the plaintiffs’ engineer’s proposal.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ preparation to enforce the prior order was necessary in the circumstances.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,800 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following contempt proceedings arising from failure to comply with a prior court order in a neighbour nuisance dispute, the court addressed costs related to an April 2012 hearing concerning sanctions for contempt.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $15,000.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity was appropriate given the contempt finding and the litigation conduct of the contemnor.

However, exercising moderation due to the ongoing neighbour dispute and the court fixing rather than assessing costs, the court reduced the claimed amount slightly.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive.