Nicholas Jane Pepino

In a land compensation proceeding, the claimant brought a motion for directions regarding the interpretation of a prior Tribunal order for document production and discovery.

The Tribunal clarified that the claimant must produce full, unredacted copies of expert reports and supporting evidence that existed at the time of its statement of claim, but exempted communications protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal also directed the claimant's representative to reattend for examination for discovery regarding the produced documents.

In an expropriation proceeding, both the claimant and the respondent municipality brought motions regarding questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The Tribunal ordered the City's representative to answer questions about the purchase price of adjacent lands, finding it relevant to the claimant's theory of highest and best use.

The Tribunal also ordered the claimant's representative to provide an itemized list of rental losses and to produce valuation reports referenced in its pleadings, provided that the claimant was not required to produce new analyses or expert work product protected by litigation privilege.

The claimant sought compensation from the City of Toronto under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of its lands.

The parties requested an adjournment of the previously scheduled hearing and agreed to new dates for the exchange of documents and a new hearing schedule.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the new procedural order, setting the hearing to commence on October 11, 2022, and established a discovery plan.

The applicant residents' associations sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that approved a revised development proposal to demolish three houses and build a low-rise apartment in a Heritage Conservation District.

The applicants argued the tribunal made errors of law by deferring to the City's demolition approval under the Ontario Heritage Act, treating demolition as conservation, and failing to assign a higher heritage rating to one of the houses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the applicants' challenges were directed at findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not subject to appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding a refused tree removal permit.

The right of appeal under s. 136(1) of the Municipal Act had been repealed before the permit was refused.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the moving party had no vested right of appeal upon merely filing the application, as the right only arises upon an actual refusal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought their costs.

The Divisional Court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, allowing the disbursements as claimed but reducing the fees claimed due to duplication of time and excessive preparation time by junior counsel.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court awarded each appellant $15,000 in fees, plus their respective disbursements, payable by the respondents.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

The respondents argued the application was moot because they had sought approval of a second site plan.

The Divisional Court rejected the mootness argument and held it had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the application.

The court ordered the application for judicial review stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal of the second site plan to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, noting that if the second site plan is approved, the application will become moot.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision granting minor variances to the respondents for the construction of a new home.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB erred in law by failing to properly apply the four-part test for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Court held that the OMB unreasonably focused almost exclusively on the impact of the variances, neglecting to adequately consider their size, desirability, and whether they maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and official plan.

The matter was remitted to a different panel of the OMB.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) granting minor variances to the respondents to construct a new two-storey building.

The applicants argued the OMB erred in law by subsuming the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act into a single test of impact, failing to require a demonstrated need for the variances, misapprehending evidence regarding building length and height, and imposing an unenforceable condition on a rear balcony.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision on these questions of law and granted leave to appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that the respondents fell within the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and were entitled to a hearing on their appeals regarding aggregate resource uses.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the interpretation of the newly enacted legislation raised a point of law of sufficient public importance and that there was sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.