Richard Brookes

The Tribunal held a Status Hearing regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a portion of plaza lands for a roundabout.

The Tribunal scheduled a Case Management Conference and a four-day Hearing on the Merits.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging business losses caused by the respondent municipality's road construction projects.

The Tribunal found the claimant's financial evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which showed no causal link between the construction and the alleged revenue decline.

Applying the Antrim test for private nuisance, the Tribunal concluded the claimant failed to prove the construction caused a substantial and unreasonable interference or a disproportionate burden.

The claim was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation arising from the expropriation of the claimant's lands for a Light Rail Transit System.

As the parties were not yet ready for case management and intended to discuss potential resolution, the Tribunal issued directives for future scheduling, status reporting, and the eventual submission of a draft Procedural Order.

The respondent tow truck driver was acquitted of municipal by-law offences for offering services and positioning his truck within 200 metres of an accident scene.

The lower courts found the municipal by-law inconsistent with s. 177(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which exempts towing services from a general prohibition on commercial solicitation on roadways in an emergency.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 177(3) merely creates an exception to a prohibition and does not grant paramount permission to attend accident scenes.

The by-law was not inconsistent with the HTA.

Convictions were entered and fines imposed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the arbitration of a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act between the claimants and the Region of Waterloo.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, mediation, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin on November 20, 2023.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference to schedule a hearing for compensation arising from the expropriation of land by the Region of Waterloo.

The parties indicated they expect to call 14 witnesses.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing commencing in November 2023 and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

A case management conference was held regarding a claim for compensation arising out of injurious affection.

The Tribunal ordered the substitution of the corporate claimant, 2350685 Ontario Inc., for the personal claimant, Dean Adams, on consent.

A procedural order was issued setting the dates for the hearing on the merits and establishing the pre-hearing procedural requirements.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motion to be heard by video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The appellant appealed conditions of a Permit to Take Water requiring the installation of a nested bedrock monitoring well at its golf course.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties requested that the Tribunal set dates for a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates, establishing a schedule for document disclosure and witness statements, and determining the order of evidence presentation.

The appellant appealed conditions of a Permit to Take Water requiring the installation of a nested bedrock monitoring well.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo requested participant status, arguing it had an interest in monitoring the aquifer which serves as its source of drinking water.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Region on consent and set a schedule for document disclosure and mediation.

The applicant alleged that the respondents' transit fare structure, which provides discounts based on age but not for low-income adults between 20 and 64, discriminated against her on the basis of age.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that persons between 20 and 64 do not constitute an identifiable group that has experienced historic disadvantage relative to seniors or youth, and that providing discounted transit rates to those over 65 and under 20 does not perpetuate prejudice or disadvantage.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Regional Municipality appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for a municipal drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessments of two landowners and re-allocated the costs to the Regional Municipality and an upstream landowner.

The Tribunal found no substantive evidence to support the Court of Revision's decision and set it aside.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that one of the landowners had requested special modifications to the drain (watertight pipe and rerouting) to prevent agricultural runoff from entering his recreational pond, which added significant extra costs to the project.

The Tribunal ordered that this landowner be assessed a special benefit for the entire extra cost, or be given the option to withdraw his requests and have the drain redesigned.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waglers appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Gingerich Road Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the Waglers' benefit assessment and increased the Region's assessment.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's original calculations to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal set aside the Court of Revision's decision and confirmed the assessments as set out in the Engineer's Report.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Weber-Brubacher Municipal Drain, seeking compensation for the removal of two cedar trees, increased allowances under sections 29 and 30 of the Drainage Act, and a reduction in their assessment.

The Tribunal found that the cedar trees constituted an obstruction to the drainage works under section 80 of the Act and therefore the appellants were not entitled to compensation for their removal.

The Tribunal also denied the request for increased allowances, noting that the right-of-way was established and paid for in 1973, and the Act does not provide compensation for construction inconvenience.

The Tribunal found the assessments to be fair and reasonable, and dismissed the appeals.