Leah Cummings

The claimants sought compensation under s. 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of their property by the respondent municipality for a contaminant attenuation zone.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that the property may be environmentally contaminated and requested an adjournment to determine its environmental status and prepare appraisals.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange appraisal reports by May 15, 2025, and adjourned the CMC.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At the outset, the Tribunal held a motion hearing and determined it lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(50.1) of the Planning Act to consider an expansion of the OPA to include adjacent lands that were not part of the original application or appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, finding that the proposed reclassification to 'Station Area Core' and the 46-storey height were appropriate given the site's proximity to a new LRT station.

The Tribunal also approved the proposed 5.5 m tower setback to the north and 6.0 m base building setback along Bayview Avenue, preferring the applicant's expert evidence over the City's.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential lot to create two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the City passed a new comprehensive zoning by-law, and the parties reached a settlement amending the lot lines to comply with the new by-law without requiring minor variances.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the settlement, arguing the smaller lots were incompatible with the neighbourhood and premature pending a municipal drainage study.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, finding the amended proposal was compatible with the new zoning standards and that stormwater management concerns were adequately addressed through the agreed conditions of consent.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals.

The Tribunal also identified a jurisdictional issue regarding the expansion of the OPA lands post-appeal and directed that a motion hearing be held to determine the status of the expanded OPA prior to the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding three claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a property for the Ontario Line Subway project.

The claimants requested that a fourth related claim be heard together with these three.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day joint hearing for September 2025 and adjourned the CMC to allow the fourth claimant to file their Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

Following a decision awarding the claimant $571,891 for injurious affection due to business losses from an expropriation, the parties made written submissions on statutory interest.

The respondent argued that business losses are disturbance damages and do not attract interest under section 33(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that business losses resulting from the construction or use of the works constitute injurious affection under section 1(1)(a)(ii) and therefore attract statutory interest.

The Tribunal ordered interest to be calculated from the beginning of each loss period, totaling $190,170.52 to April 19, 2024, with a per diem thereafter.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss a claim for injurious affection arising from sewer repair works.

The City argued the claim was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 22(1) of the Expropriations Act, the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the doctrine of laches.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimants provided sufficient notice via email in 2011 and subsequent communications.

The Tribunal also held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to Expropriations Act claims, and the doctrine of laches was inapplicable given the ongoing communications and lack of prejudice to the City.

The claimant in an expropriation proceeding brought a motion to admit an updated spreadsheet detailing its relocation expenses, which the Tribunal had previously refused to admit on the first day of the hearing due to late production.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it violated the Rules of Civil Procedure, was barred by issue estoppel, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the claimant provided a reasonable explanation for the late production, the respondent now had ample time to review the document, and the Tribunal's broad procedural powers allowed it to revisit evidentiary rulings to ensure a fair resolution on the merits.

The appellant appealed the refusal of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to issue a development permit.

During the course of the hearing, new legislative amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and O.Reg 41/24 came into effect.

The Tribunal ruled that the new legislation governs the de novo appeal and granted an adjournment to allow the parties and their experts to address the new law.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's motion to amend his witness list but denied a request for a site visit as premature.

The claimant brought a motion for directions seeking an order requiring the respondent to provide responsive answers to undertakings and under advisements from an examination for discovery.

The underlying claim involves damages for expropriation, injurious affection, and trespass related to the Finch West LRT Project.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to answer several undertakings, including providing names on a redacted email, producing requests for drone photographs, and answering questions about access obstruction and internal policies, finding that the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to land compensation proceedings under the Expropriations Act.

The claimants brought a motion for an order compelling the respondent to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during an examination for discovery.

The underlying claim involves compensation for the expropriation of a temporary easement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to answer questions relating to property access and the section 25 appraisal, as they relate to disturbance damages and market value.

Questions regarding project design and agreements were deemed premature or irrelevant because construction had been delayed.

The claimant, a restaurant operator, sought compensation for injurious affection and disturbance damages resulting from the expropriation of a portion of its leased plaza's common areas and the subsequent construction of the Eglinton Light Rail Transit project.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the claimant was an "owner" under the Expropriations Act due to its interest in the common facilities.

The Tribunal held that the severe traffic disruptions caused by the prolonged construction directly resulted in a significant decline in the restaurant's customer counts and revenues.

The Tribunal awarded $571,891 for business losses incurred between October 2017 and March 2020.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the loss of the business's overall value, finding that the restaurant's permanent closure was ultimately caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its pre-existing reliance on the claimant's other shuttered restaurants, rather than the expropriation.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to consolidate four separate appeals concerning development charges under the Development Charges Act.

The appellants opposed the motion, arguing that their appeals were site-specific, at different stages of readiness, and based on different legal challenges.

The Tribunal denied the motion to consolidate, finding insufficient commonalities and concluding that combining the appeals would be prejudicial to the individual parties and inefficient.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference and Status Hearing regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The parties submitted a draft Hearing Plan for a five-day video hearing scheduled for January 2024.

The Tribunal approved the Hearing Plan and directed the parties to proceed in accordance with it, noting an upcoming mediation session.

The claimant, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, brought a motion seeking a confidentiality clause in a Procedural Order to protect sensitive commercial and financial data related to its $2,000,000 business loss claim arising from an expropriation.

The claimant argued that disclosure of this information could be used by competitors to its detriment.

The respondent, York Region, opposed the motion, arguing that the requested order was overly broad, would interfere with solicitor-client communications, and was unnecessary given the deemed undertaking rule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the request too onerous and unsubstantiated at this preliminary stage, noting that the claimant failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the pre-emptory confidentiality order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference in an arbitration to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of fee simple interests and a temporary easement by Metrolinx.

The Tribunal established a Procedural Order and timeline, including scheduling a pre-discovery motion requested by the claimant and setting dates for documentary discovery, expert reports, and an eight-day hearing on the merits.

A case management conference was held to address procedural matters and set a hearing date for an arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2024, and the Procedural Order was appended to govern all further pre-hearing requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation and damages arising from the expropriation of a portion of the claimants' lands by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting out the pre-hearing requirements, discovery deadlines, and scheduled a five-day hearing for January 2024.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to link two expropriation arbitrations and have them heard together.

The first arbitration involved the property owner's claim for market value and disturbance damages due to development delay.

The second arbitration involved a commercial parking lot tenant's claim for business losses resulting from a temporary easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claims involved different damages, different expert evidence, and no common issues of fact or law other than arising from the same expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that linking the proceedings would cause prejudice, delay, and increased costs for the tenant.