Mark William Barrett

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it liable under an insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge did not err in proceeding on an agreed factual basis, finding no substantial breach of the insured's duty to cooperate, and interpreting the curative provision to permit notice in the next policy period absent prejudice to the insurer.

The Applicants and the Town of Caledon brought a motion for approval of a settlement concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 4-storey residential condominium.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) opposed the settlement, arguing that the Tribunal's previous 2022 decision failed to make determinations on natural hazard and negative impact issues.

The Tribunal declined to conduct a review or reconsideration of its 2022 decision, finding no statutory basis to do so.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Town's Official Plan, and approved the settlement.

The applicant, a land surveying company, sought indemnification from the respondent insurance company under a professional liability insurance policy for a settlement payment of $3,200,000.00 relating to the Halton Claim.

The respondent had already paid $5,000,000.00 under the policy for an unrelated Port Lands Claim.

The court determined that the Halton Claim fell within the policy's coverage, that it was covered under the first policy period based on when the applicant first received notice of the claim, and that the applicant did not breach its duty to cooperate with the insurer.

The court ordered full indemnification of the settlement amount plus costs.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Argo Neyagawa Corporation against the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual on consent.

The parties agreed to engage in Tribunal-led mediation.

A Procedural Order was approved, and a 10-day video hearing was scheduled for December 2025 and January 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's approval of a proposed plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on July 21, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to render a decision on a site-specific Official Plan Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to two neighbouring entities.

A third entity requested party status but agreed to accept participant status after concerns were raised.

The Tribunal set a timeline for finalizing the Issues List and Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

Great American Insurance Company appealed a judgment finding it had a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay against claims related to property damage from sodium hydroxide in the water supply.

Great American argued a lead exclusion in its policy precluded coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a section of the lead exclusion was ambiguous, thus triggering the duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" of coverage, as per *Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada*.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the County of Prince Edward's by-law adopting the Wellington Heritage Conservation District Plan.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement modifying site-specific policies and guidelines to better differentiate between newer and older commercial areas.

Based on uncontested expert heritage and planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications satisfied the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Dave Watson in three negligence actions arising from a boating accident.

Watson, the insured, conceded no duty to indemnify but argued Wawanesa had a duty to defend and had waived its right to refuse defence.

The court found that Wawanesa had a duty to defend based on the "pleadings rule" and the doctrine of waiver, but no duty to indemnify.

Wawanesa was ordered to resume providing a defence.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's by-law designating the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District and adopting its associated Plan.

Based on the uncontested expert evidence of a heritage planner and a land use planner, the Tribunal found that the modified Plan satisfies the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the designation of the HCD and the modified Plan, allowing the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

This decision addresses two consolidated applications seeking a declaration that Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) has a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay in multiple actions concerning "pinhole leaks" in water pipes.

GAIC denied coverage, relying on a lead exclusion clause.

The court found the lead exclusion ambiguous and, applying the "mere possibility" test, determined that GAIC failed to prove the exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied to the claims, which primarily alleged negligence related to the introduction of sodium hydroxide, not lead.

The court declared GAIC obliged to defend the City.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2477454 Ontario Inc. against the County of Prince Edward's by-law designating the Wellington Heritage Conservation District.

The parties indicated their intention to seek Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the issues.

The Tribunal supported this approach and directed the parties to advise the Case Coordinator of next steps once known.

Members of the public in attendance were advised on how to request party or participant status for future proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's By-law No. 1218-2022, which designates the Parkdale Main Street Heritage Conservation District.

The parties consented to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence in September 2024 and approved the final Procedural Order to guide the proceedings.

The plaintiff initiated an action against "Can-Sure Underwriting" a managing general agent, for an insurance coverage dispute, mistakenly believing it to be the insurer.

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct this misnomer by adding the actual subscribing insurers as defendants.

Concurrently, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by a one-year contractual limitation period and that it was not the proper defendant.

The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding promissory estoppel, as the defendant's agent had previously advised the plaintiff of a two-year limitation period, leading to reliance.

The court granted the plaintiff's misnomer motion, concluding that the intended defendants (subscribing insurers) had actual knowledge of the claim from its inception and suffered no prejudice from the delay in formal naming, especially given the contradictory information provided by the defendant.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the respondent's Development Charges By-law.

The parties requested a four-day merits hearing and agreed to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled the merits hearing and approved the Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in its January 10, 2023 decision.

The amendments corrected the appearances to include the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance as a party and corrected references to the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance in the body of the decision.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law and draft plan of subdivision applications within the legislative timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton, Conservation Halton, Eaglewood Communities Inc., and Dennis Khanna.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and directed that Eaglewood's related appeals be heard together with these proceedings.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant for the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and a proposed plan of subdivision to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a list of individuals and denied the applicant's request to postpone the determination of party status, granting party status to the regional municipality, conservation authority, and two ratepayers' groups.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The City of Toronto requested a Case Management Conference to schedule a five-day hearing on the merits regarding outstanding appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 365.

The Tribunal treated the event as a Status Hearing.

After hearing from the parties that several rezoning applications had been approved by the City and others were progressing through municipal processes, the Tribunal found that setting a hearing date would be premature.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the hearing and directed the City to request a further status update in nine months if no material progress occurs.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a heritage permit issued by the Town of Grimsby for the demolition of a coach house and alterations to a designated heritage property.

The parties reached a settlement to revise two conditions related to the positioning of new construction and the visual impact of a parking ramp barrier.

Based on uncontested expert heritage evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the revised conditions, finding them consistent with provincial heritage policies.