Michael J. Paiva

The parties proposed amendments to a Procedural Order issued by the Ontario Land Tribunal on March 12, 2026, regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal considered the requested amendments and issued a revised Procedural Order governing the future conduct of the proceeding, including setting a seven-day video hearing to commence on September 13, 2027.

The parties submitted a proposed procedural order on consent to govern the future conduct of a hearing to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued the procedural order, setting out the timetable for discoveries, exchange of expert reports, mediation, and the final hearing.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding leading up to a 10-day hearing scheduled to commence in June 2027.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for a consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of two residential lots from one existing lot.

The central issue was whether the proposed reduced lot width and area were compatible with the character of the mature neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, finding that the appropriate neighbourhood study area was broader than just the immediate street and included a mix of lot sizes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would coexist harmoniously without unacceptable adverse impacts, satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and met the four-part test for minor variances under s. 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was given, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The claimant filed a Notice of Arbitration against the City of Toronto under the Expropriations Act for compensation following a full taking of the subject land.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that the parties intend to engage in mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a nine-day arbitration hearing, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection resulting from construction and road closures associated with the respondent's light rail transit project.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that pleadings were exchanged but undertakings and refusals remained incomplete.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing on the merits and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever 10.9 hectares of agricultural land and merge it with an adjacent agricultural property to facilitate a more efficient farming operation.

The Town opposed the application, arguing it constituted lot creation and would leave the retained parcel undersized under the 40-hectare minimum in the Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal was a minor lot boundary adjustment for farm consolidation that did not create a new lot, and that the retained parcel would remain agriculturally viable.

The Corporation of the Township of North Dumfries brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Geil Style Enterprises Inc. and Jason Geil from continuing a large-scale fill importation business without a permit, in contravention of municipal bylaws.

The plaintiffs argued for a 'strong prima facie case' test for the injunction, but the court applied the 'serious question to be tried' standard, noting that municipalities enforcing bylaws are not required to demonstrate irreparable harm in the same way as private plaintiffs.

The court found the Township met the test, that the non-compliance was flagrant, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Township.

The interlocutory injunction was granted, effective March 18, 2022.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Community Council decision denying them a front yard parking pad permit.

The permit was refused because the proposed pad was on the same side of the street as authorized permit parking and was too close to a protected tree.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness and that their application was grandparented by a 31-year-old abandoned application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Community Council's decision was reasonable and that the applicants were afforded an appropriate level of procedural fairness given the context.

The appellant sought to stay or dismiss an Ontario contract action on the basis of a prior default declaratory judgment obtained in Minnesota stating that nothing was owed under the parties' agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that even assuming the technical requirements of res judicata or issue estoppel were met, the motion judge properly exercised discretion not to apply those doctrines where doing so would be unjust.

The court emphasized the absence of any merits determination in the foreign proceeding, the tactical and defensive nature of the foreign declaratory action, and the fact that the compensation claim was integrally tied to Ontario under contracts governed and enforced by Ontario law.

Comity did not require a stay in the circumstances.