Talia Gordner

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 moving party defendants in a multi-defendant civil action brought a motion for dismissal of the action against them without costs.

The plaintiff municipality had settled the action with the moving parties.

Having regard to the consents filed, the unopposed defendants, and the defendants who had not responded despite being duly served, the court granted the motion and issued an order in accordance with the draft order filed.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion to strike the statements of defence filed by the self-represented defendants in two related fraud actions.

The court reviewed the motion materials and the responding party's correspondence, then set a schedule for responding materials, reply, and oral submissions rather than deciding the motion on the written record alone.

The responding parties were given until April 7, 2026 to file responding materials, with reply due April 17, 2026 and oral submissions scheduled for April 24, 2026.

Following a prior costs endorsement, it came to the court's attention that the moving party had renewed an original motion for additional disclosure that had not been brought to the court's attention due to filing irregularities.

The court reviewed its prior costs order and limited the cost award to the sum associated with fake case references, staying the balance of the costs order pending a scheduled in-person hearing on the renewed motion.

Following the adjournment of the self-represented respondent's motion on a prior hearing date due to improper conduct — specifically the submission of fabricated legal authorities and misrepresentations to the court — the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away.

The self-represented respondent disputed the quantum, arguing costs should not exceed approximately $1,100.

The court found the respondent's submissions unconvincing and highlighted his failure to show remorse, his continued misrepresentations, and his abandonment of the renewed motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing both the costs of responding to the flawed factum and the totality of the responding party's efforts.

The plaintiff was successful in opposing a motion brought by the defendants, which the court previously dismissed as unnecessary and obstructive to the discovery process.

The plaintiff sought costs ranging from $18,435.80 on a partial indemnity scale to $26,366.82 on a full indemnity scale.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the defendants' obstructive conduct but also acknowledging that the plaintiff did not put its best foot forward regarding its productions.

The court fixed costs at $12,500 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) to enforce a permit issued to his neighbours, who had constructed a retaining wall contrary to the approved grading plan.

The LPRCA had investigated the applicant's complaint but exercised its discretion to take no enforcement action, concluding the completed work conformed with the applicable legislation.

The Superior Court found that while the LPRCA has the discretionary authority to enforce its permits through stop orders or charges, it is not mandatory.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Court held that the LPRCA's decision not to take enforcement steps was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application was dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Tzimas J. dated August 1, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 for the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area.

Several appeals were withdrawn, and the remaining appellants agreed to scope their appeals to be site-specific and adjourn them sine die.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawals, adjourned the remaining site-specific appeals sine die, released the scheduled 10-day hearing dates, and directed the parties to provide a status update within one year.

The parties requested on consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for May 2024 regarding the proposed redevelopment of 7887 Weston Road.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the parties to engage in Tribunal-led mediation and rescheduled the 20-day merit hearing to commence in January 2025.

A revised Procedural Order was issued to govern the rescheduled hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use redevelopment of a commercial site.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal comprising four new buildings, a retained heritage building, and a public park.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to regional and local official plans, and represents appropriate intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions related to sanitary servicing and finalization of the instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a motion hearing regarding appeals by Timbercreek Four Quadrant GP2 Inc. against the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The appeals relate to a proposed redevelopment featuring a public park and five mixed-use buildings.

The order establishes the procedural requirements, dates, and issues list for a seven-day hearing scheduled to commence on October 10, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference concerning appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit the redevelopment of a shopping centre site with a public park and five mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order, confirmed participant status for a residents' association representative, and provided guidance on mediation services.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Wedgewood Columbus Limited against the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the property at 7887 Weston Road.

The order sets out the organization of the 24-day hearing scheduled to begin on May 27, 2024, establishes the deadlines for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and visual evidence, and finalizes the Issues List to be adjudicated.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use redevelopment.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to several neighbours and directed one unincorporated group to incorporate before the next CMC.

The Tribunal also limited a participant's 28-page submission to three pages of written submissions without evidence, pursuant to section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

A second CMC and a seven-day hearing on the merits were scheduled.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 12, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, payable by the moving parties David Atsushi Ohashi and Pamela Gloria Ohashi.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 21, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion brought by the Regional Municipality of Halton following a previous decision regarding "Wagg Orders" and the scope of disclosure.

The plaintiff sought clarification on sharing materials for a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that the defendants' "purported consent" to the plaintiff's motion was not genuine and forced the plaintiff to proceed.

Although the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,894.76, finding the defendants' conduct, while not egregious enough for substantial indemnity, was ill-advised and necessitated the motion.

The court applied Rule 57 factors in determining the appropriate costs.

The Regional Municipality of Halton brought a motion seeking to amend two prior "Wagg Orders" to explicitly include a related wrongful dismissal action (the "Ohashi Wrongful Dismissal Action") within their scope for the purpose of document disclosure.

The defendants, the Ohashis, opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court, applying Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the omission of the wrongful dismissal action from the previous order was an oversight.

Consequently, the court granted the amendment, allowing Halton to produce the documents obtained under the Wagg Orders in the Ohashi Wrongful Dismissal Action, emphasizing that questions of relevance and admissibility would be determined by the trial judge.