Lynn Robinson

The parties settled an expropriation compensation claim for $50,000 plus reasonable costs to be agreed upon or assessed.

The claimant subsequently brought a motion for costs of $401,387.18.

The City opposed the quantum and sought its own costs, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably by pursuing a speculative damages claim and delaying settlement.

The Tribunal held that the settlement agreement did not permit the City to claim its own costs and that it could not evaluate the merits of the unlitigated compensation claim on a costs motion.

The Tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable and awarded the claimant its costs, subject to specific reductions for a technology fee, excessive consultant hours, and duplicative legal time.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a retail store on a rural property.

At this Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbour with a sewer line easement and participant status to a neighbouring institutional landowner.

The parties expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and a subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference to update the timetable for an expropriation compensation claim.

The parties agreed to a new timetable, which was filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that all outstanding undertakings be fulfilled by January 31, 2023, and approved the agreed-upon timetable.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to determine whether 3930149 Canada Inc. had standing to request a Hearing of Necessity regarding a proposed expropriation, and to determine the required pre-hearing disclosure.

The Requestor claimed standing as an 'owner' based on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the registered owner, but refused to provide the agreement to the City.

The Tribunal ordered the Requestor to provide a redacted copy of the agreement to the City to establish its standing before a hearing date could be set or further disclosure ordered.

The applicant appealed the failure of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville to make decisions on a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The proposal sought to permit a residential development of 782 units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing in writing regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-law 2019-353 concerning high-rise building provisions.

The City and the appellant reached a settlement to correct a technical error in the By-law and address site-specific constraints regarding tower separation distances.

Based on the unchallenged expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement fair, reasonable, and consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modified the Zoning By-law, and adjourned another site-specific appeal sine die.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's appeals regarding a proposed residential subdivision, arguing the appeals lacked apparent land use planning grounds and were premature due to insufficient technical information.

The respondent had appealed the moving parties' failure to make a decision on its draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's notices of appeal and supporting expert affidavits disclosed genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds worthy of adjudication.

The Tribunal also held that prematurity under section 51(24) of the Planning Act is a matter to be determined at a full hearing on the merits, not on a motion to dismiss.

The applicant, convicted of sexual interference involving his 14-year-old stepdaughter, challenged the 45-day mandatory minimum sentence under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it was grossly disproportionate.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, mitigating factors including the applicant's Indigenous status and community recommendations for restorative justice, and aggravating factors such as the breach of trust.

The court found the appropriate sentence for the applicant was 90 days intermittent imprisonment.

The constitutional challenge to the 45-day mandatory minimum was dismissed, as the court found it was not grossly disproportionate, even when considering reasonable hypotheticals.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence brought an application alleging breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b).

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test, constituting a violation of section 8.

Additionally, the court found a breach of section 10(b) rights to counsel, as the accused clearly expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel but the officers failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to consult with alternative counsel.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath test evidence due to the seriousness of the police conduct, the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, and the minimal nature of the offence.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over involving the theft of thirty-two Blackberry Smart Phones valued at approximately $14,368 from his employer, Research in Motion, over a seven-month period.

The accused, a 48-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, was employed in a position of trust at RIM and sold the phones to a hairstylist for $2,000.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, including community service and restitution, finding that despite the breach of trust, the offender's personal circumstances, genuine remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and positive antecedents warranted a discharge rather than custody.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss four human rights complaints alleging discrimination in tenancy based on the requirement to pay 'key money'.

The respondents argued the complaints should be dismissed due to unreasonable delay, failure to disclose allegations, prior rent review proceedings, and lack of corporate liability.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint against one individual respondent for lack of evidence but rejected the other motions.

The Board found the delay did not cause serious prejudice, the disclosure was sufficient, the rent review proceedings did not address discrimination, and the corporate respondent could be liable for its employee's actions.

The Board also declined to separate the complaints or exclude similar fact evidence at the preliminary stage.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Mississauga warehouse.

The parties disagreed on whether certain individuals exercised managerial functions and whether the 'Speed Service' delivery drivers should be included in the unit.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of the disputed managerial individuals.

Regarding the Speed Service drivers, the Board found they had a fundamentally different working relationship and community of interest compared to the regular company drivers, as they used their own vehicles, were paid by commission, and had different hours and supervision.

Consequently, the Board excluded the Speed Service drivers from the proposed bargaining unit.