T. Hill

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decisions to approve planning applications and a demolition permit for the respondent theatre company's heritage theatre, located in a heritage conservation district.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant, a local building corporation, lacked both private and public interest standing to challenge the decisions.

In the alternative, the court held that the municipality's decisions to permit the demolition and exempt the new theatre from parking requirements were reasonable, as they were based on extensive consultation, expert reports, and a balancing of heritage conservation with accessibility and economic benefits.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding complex expropriation claims by the claimants against the respondent concerning Union Station.

The parties agreed on most terms of a draft Procedural Order but disagreed on the commencement date for a 40-day hearing, with the claimants proposing April 2025 and the respondent proposing September 2025.

The Tribunal compromised and set the hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, by video hearing, and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding complex expropriation claims by Osmington (Union Station) Inc. and the City of Toronto against Metrolinx.

The Tribunal declined to set a hearing date, finding it premature as the parties had not yet agreed on the lands expropriated or finalized a Common Visual Evidence Book.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a revised draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding complex expropriations of lands and air rights at Union Station.

The parties provided updates on Tribunal-led mediation, a draft Procedural Order, and a Common Visual Evidence Book.

Finding that the parties had not yet agreed on the lands expropriated and their areas, the Tribunal concluded it was premature to set a hearing date.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a revised draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation arising from expropriations at Union Station by Metrolinx.

The claimants, Osmington (Union Station) Inc. and the City of Toronto, and the respondent, Metrolinx, provided updates on pleadings and mediation efforts.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference, directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order, and suggested the creation of a common visual evidence book to assist in mediation or a hearing on the merits.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with fraud over $5,000 for his role in an elaborate scheme that defrauded his brother of $750,000.

The scheme, orchestrated with the accused's girlfriend, involved a fake civil lawsuit, a fictitious trust fund, and a fabricated cancer diagnosis.

The accused claimed he was an innocent agent who believed his girlfriend's lies.

The court rejected his testimony, finding he actively participated in deceiving his brother and was, at the very least, wilfully blind to the numerous red flags.

The accused was found guilty.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal concerning the designation of certain properties under the Ontario Heritage Act and the interpretation of provincial and municipal heritage planning provisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions of law relating to the Tribunal's consideration of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the municipal Official Plan.

Costs of the motion were fixed and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants were charged with zoning by-law infractions for storing cargo containers and operating a public storage facility on their properties.

The court found that the cargo containers were actively used for storage and therefore did not fall under the by-law's prohibition against 'disused' containers.

Furthermore, the defendants successfully established on a balance of probabilities that their operation of a public storage facility qualified as a legal non-conforming use, having been in continuous operation since before the relevant by-law amendments.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss charges for alleged violations of Town of Fort Erie By-Law 129-90 regarding the use of a public storage facility and cargo containers on their properties.

The defendants argued that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process because similar charges had been brought against them on multiple prior occasions that were resolved in their favour, and that the Town was therefore estopped from continuing the prosecution.

The court rejected the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or vexatiousness on the part of the Town.

The court held that a prior dismissal in 2013 did not preclude the municipality from ongoing enforcement of zoning by-law violations, and that the defence of legal non-conforming use remained a matter for adjudication at trial.

The moving parties sought an order requiring the responding party, a franchisee corporation, to post security for costs in relation to a counterclaim and third party proceedings arising from a franchise dispute.

The court considered Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the circumstances justified ordering security for costs against the counterclaim plaintiff.

The court held that the third parties were not entitled to security for costs because none of the recognized exceptions permitting recovery of third party costs from a plaintiff applied.

However, the defendant by counterclaim established that the responding party had previously pursued substantially identical relief in earlier proceedings and had failed to satisfy outstanding costs orders exceeding $40,000.

The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in favour of the defendant by counterclaim.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the defendants' bills of costs, making reductions for excessive trial preparation time and for the defendants' failure to properly produce relevant documents before trial, which had necessitated a two-day adjournment.

Total costs of $784,276.99 were awarded to the defendants.