3 total
Tribunal accepts withdrawal of several appeals and enforces strict compliance with Procedural Order for remaining appellant.
At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a development permit approval, several appellants withdrew their appeals following a partial settlement with the applicant.
The remaining self-represented appellant had failed to comply with the Procedural Order, including deadlines for witness lists and statements.
The Tribunal refused to extend the deadlines or allow new issues or witnesses to be introduced, emphasizing that self-represented parties must comply with the Tribunal's Rules and orders.
The Tribunal amended the Procedural Order to allow individual document books and directed that the hearing proceed on the existing issues list.
Tribunal schedules further Case Management Conference for development permit appeals regarding pond restoration.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development permit approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission for pond restoration at the Lathrop Nature Preserve.
One appellant withdrew their appeal prior to the conference.
The parties agreed to engage in settlement discussions and to draft a Procedural Order and Issues List.
The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2022 to finalize the procedural matters and set hearing dates.
Dock failure entitled homeowner to repair damages; defamation counterclaim dismissed.
A homeowner sued a contractor for a refund of the contract price after a lakeside dock constructed under a five‑year workmanship and materials warranty became uneven after two winters.
The contractor argued the damage was caused by extraordinary ice and weather conditions rather than defective construction and counterclaimed for defamation based on threatening emails and alleged reputational harm.
The court found the precise physical cause of the uplift uncertain but concluded the dock’s premature failure, absent a satisfactory exculpatory explanation, entitled the plaintiff to damages.
However, the plaintiff failed to mitigate losses by investigating repair options, and the evidence established the dock was repairable at modest cost.
The court awarded damages limited to the estimated repair cost and dismissed the defendant’s defamation counterclaim for lack of proof of publication or actual loss.