Luke Johnston

The appellant developer sued the respondent resident for defamation, economic torts, and trespass after the respondent publicly opposed a mall redevelopment and complained to the city about safety and bylaw issues.

The respondent successfully moved to dismiss the action as a SLAPP under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and was awarded $25,000 in damages and full indemnity costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and damages award, finding the action was inextricably linked to the respondent's public expression and lacked substantial merit.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the motion judge erred by pre-determining the costs scale, and reduced the costs award from $156,394.54 to $75,000.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by 1322104 Ontario Inc. regarding a site plan application for a 14-unit townhouse development in Toronto.

The order sets out the procedural deadlines, issues list, and order of evidence for a 7-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 9, 2026.

Key issues include the safety specifications of a proposed crash wall adjacent to the Metrolinx rail corridor.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-Law No. 11370-2022.

The parties requested assistance with procedural matters and finalizing the Procedural Order for a phased merit hearing.

The Tribunal issued an order setting dates for the City to respond to disclosure requests, scheduling a potential motion for direction, and setting a 14-day Phase 1 Merit Hearing for June 2026.

During a hearing on the merits of an appeal concerning a proposed redevelopment, the moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that two expert witnesses retained by the respondents committed perjury and colluded via email.

The moving party argued the experts' evidence was tainted and should be excluded.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to make criminal findings of perjury, but had authority to address improper conduct.

The Tribunal concluded that the email exchange did not breach Rule 7.5 of the Tribunal Rules, did not impair the experts' independence or impartiality, and did not prejudice the moving party.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the experts' evidence remained on the record.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced height and density.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 588 and By-law No. 1144-2022, which concern alternative parkland dedication rates.

The City requested consolidation of the appeals.

The Tribunal determined that the site-specific appeals of the OPA are distinguishable from the general appeals of the by-law, and ordered that the matters be heard together but not consolidated.

The Tribunal directed the City to provide a written status report by December 20, 2024, as the parties await a provincial regulation related to section 42 of the Planning Act.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 536 (OPA 536), which relates to development within the area of influence of rail facilities.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement and requested the Tribunal approve a modified version of OPA 536.

The Tribunal found that the modifications maintain the intent to address public safety concerns arising from derailments, provide greater certainty regarding the 30-metre area of influence, and clarify requirements for rail safety mitigation reports.

The Tribunal approved the modified OPA 536, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order directing the City of Mississauga to provide further disclosure of background data related to the Development Charges By-law No. 0133-2022.

The Tribunal found that the appellant demonstrated relevance and necessity for the requested information to ensure the best evidence is presented at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the City to use its best efforts to respond to the outstanding requests and amended the issues list as agreed by the parties.

The appellant, Dunpar Developments Inc., brought a motion to divide the merit hearing of its appeal against the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-Law into two phases.

The appellant argued that threshold issues regarding the City's intention to fund growth-related needs and the eligibility of third-party costs under the Development Charges Act must be adjudicated first to establish a methodology for reviewing specific project calculations.

The City opposed the motion, arguing for a single hearing event.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured a phased hearing to narrow the issues and provide necessary guidance on statutory interpretation before adjudicating the quantum of the charges.

The plaintiff, 1672736 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Homes), sued the defendants, Ezio Savini (Chief Building Official) and the City of Mississauga, for over $10 million in damages, alleging misfeasance in public office and negligence due to significant delays in building permit applications and unlawful stop work orders for its Streetsville Centre housing project.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently disclosed reasonable causes of action for both misfeasance in public office and negligence.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $15,000 in costs for the motion.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal deem the pre-conditions to its Interim Order satisfied, allowing its appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to proceed.

The City opposed, arguing that conditions relating to functional servicing and municipal infrastructure upgrades were not met due to concerns over the F-5-5 Guideline and combined sewer capacity.

The Tribunal found that the F-5-5 Guideline did not apply to the subject site and accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the existing municipal infrastructure had sufficient capacity to accommodate the development.

The motion was granted, and the pre-conditions were deemed satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc. against the City of Mississauga's enactment of Zoning By-law 0008-2023.

The Tribunal granted party status to Fountain Hill Construction and Consulting Ltd., limiting its involvement to sheltering under the issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal directed that no further requests for party status would be allowed in future proceedings.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on January 8, 2024.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 15-storey residential development.

Dundas Developments Limited requested party status, which the Tribunal denied due to the late request and changing positions.

The applicant requested a follow-up Case Management Conference in two months to present a partial settlement, but the Tribunal denied this request because the applicant had not engaged with the City or the Conservation Authority regarding the proposed settlement.

At a case management conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's city-wide Development Charges By-law, the Tribunal scheduled a separate settlement hearing for Tenblock Developments Inc.'s appeal concerning the Toronto Green Standard.

For the remaining appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc., the Tribunal directed Dunpar to bring a motion for determination on threshold issues regarding the by-law's compliance with section 5 of the Development Charges Act, and set a schedule for the motion.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a City of Mississauga Development Charges By-law, the parties disputed the wording of the Issues List.

The Tribunal directed that the terms 'fair and reasonable' be retained but placed after references to the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also directed that references to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan be removed from an issue regarding official plan conformity, while retaining the questions on conformity with the local and regional official plans.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss Dunpar Homes' appeal of the City's Parkland Conveyance By-law without a hearing, arguing the notice of appeal failed to set out sufficient objections and reasons as required by s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Dunpar argued that an earlier draft of its appeal letter was inadvertently filed electronically, but that it still contained sufficient planning grounds, and that a correct hard copy was also served.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion, finding that the electronic notice of appeal provided a sufficient 'originating core' of planning grounds, specifically that the by-law failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies, and that the appeal should not be dismissed on an overly technical basis.

The applicant requested a Telephone Conference Call due to the City's failure to sign off on post-approval conditions for previously successful official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals.

The applicant sought to consolidate a new site plan appeal with the current matter.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the site plan appeal as it was not properly before it, and directed that the impasse regarding the post-approval conditions be resolved via a formal motion supported by expert affidavits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 15-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Delmanor Prince Edward Inc. and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in the Official Plan appeal, consolidated the two appeals, and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for February 2024.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Sheridan Retail Inc. against the City of Mississauga's Development Charges By-law 0133-2022.

The appellant requested that this appeal be consolidated or heard together with a separate Community Benefits Charge appeal due to overlapping facts and issues.

The City opposed consolidation.

The Tribunal directed that a second CMC be scheduled and set filing dates for a potential motion to consolidate the appeals.