Patrick Gerald Duffy

The moving party brought a motion seeking leave to appeal an order of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that adjourned the hearing of an appeal from an Official Plan Amendment.

The OMB had adjourned the hearing until the municipality enacted a development permit by-law, despite acknowledging it could not order the municipality to pass such a by-law.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's order raised a question of law of sufficient general or public importance regarding whether the municipality is entitled under s. 17(44) of the Planning Act to have its appeal adjudicated before enacting a development permit by-law.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The Approval Holder and the Director brought motions to strike the Notice of Appeal and dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal raised issues unrelated to the specific amendment, which only allowed for an alternate transformer.

The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to allege any harm arising specifically from the amendment.

The Director and the Approval Holder brought motions to strike the appellant's Notice of Appeal regarding an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and the appellant's witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to two entities.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties requested a further continuation of a previously granted stay of portions of the Director's Order, on consent, to allow time to finalize a detailed work plan.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay until March 28, 2018.

Two condominium corporations brought applications to amend their declarations to remove provisions that expressly permitted short-term transient rentals.

The corporations argued the provisions were inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998, the applicable zoning by-law, and a restrictive covenant on title.

The court dismissed the applications, finding no inconsistency.

The declarations did not impermissibly grant rights but rather defined the scope of use restrictions, and the inability of the boards to make rules restricting short-term leasing was mandated by the Act's requirement that rules be consistent with the declaration.

The court held that any desired changes to the declarations should be pursued through the owner approval process under section 107 of the Act, rather than by alleging an inconsistency under section 109.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request while the parties worked to finalize a conceptual site model.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until October 27, 2017.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action where the plaintiff, Saramia Crescent General Partner Ltd., was awarded $1,277,000 in damages for breach of lease.

The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale up to November 8, 2016, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter, having beaten two offers to settle.

The defendants' arguments that the costs were excessive, that the issues were novel justifying a reduction, or that mediation costs should be excluded were largely rejected.

A minor reduction was made for communications costs.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the defendants for failing to disclose their own costs.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order relating to environmental contamination on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request to allow the parties time to finalize a conceptual site model and prepare for carrying out the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until September 28, 2017.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines as part of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to amend a condition of the approval relating to the protection of Blanding's turtles during construction and maintenance activities, and the appellant proposed to withdraw the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding the amendment to be in the public interest and consistent with the Environmental Protection Act, and dismissed the proceeding.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant for damages after the tenant repudiated a commercial lease with eight years remaining.

The repudiation forced the plaintiff to sell the property, as it could not afford the carrying costs without the rental income and re-letting was unfeasible.

The defendants admitted liability but argued the plaintiff suffered no damages because the property was sold at fair market value.

The court rejected this argument, finding the forced sale was not at fair market value and did not compensate the plaintiff for the lost income stream and capital appreciation.

The court accepted the plaintiff's discounted cash flow analysis to quantify damages, using the 2015 appraised fair market value to account for foreseeable lost capital appreciation, and assuming reasonable mitigation through a hypothetical investment in a REIT basket.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Little Brown Bat and Blanding's turtle.

In the remedy phase, the Approval Holder proposed mitigation plans to address the Tribunal's previous findings of harm.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the mitigation plans and applied the precautionary principle.

The Tribunal accepted the bat mitigation plan with a modification to extend turbine curtailment to sunrise.

However, the Tribunal found the proposed road restoration measures for Blanding's turtle were novel and unstudied, and therefore removed the turbines associated with those road upgrades from the approval.

During the remedy phase of an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellant brought motions to qualify a witness as an expert, admit new documentary evidence, and control the cross-examination of a respondent's witness.

The Tribunal granted the expert qualification in part, admitted some of the new evidence that was not previously obtainable, and dismissed the motion regarding the cross-examination, finding no improper conduct by opposing counsel.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Tribunal previously granted a stay of certain portions of the Order.

The parties requested a further adjournment and a continuation of the stay on consent to allow experts to consider and respond to the Director's comments on a proposed work program.

Finding no statutory bar, the Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order directing that the continuation of the cross-examination of a witness for the approval holder take place before the Tribunal, or alternatively, directing counsel to refrain from further objections.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the transcript of the cross-examination and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The appellant brought three motions in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The motions sought to qualify a witness as an expert and to admit new evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motions in part, qualifying the witness as an energy consultant and admitting specific documents attached to the affidavits of the witness and another expert into evidence, while allowing the respondents to cross-examine the affiants on the newly admitted documents.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

Following a finding that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to consider remedies.

The appellants brought a motion requesting that the continuation of the hearing be held in person rather than in writing.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that receiving evidence in writing was fair, would prevent further delay given the statutory six-month deadline, and would provide the best evidence to fulfill its mandate.

The Tribunal issued an order regarding the scope of the continuation of a hearing concerning appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal had previously found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

In this order, the Tribunal determined that the Approval Holder would be permitted to adduce additional evidence regarding proposed remedies to address the identified harm.

The Tribunal also clarified the tests, considerations, and onus of proof applicable under section 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act for the remedy phase of the hearing.

The appellants, directors of Essar Steel Algoma Inc., brought a consent motion for a stay of section 2.11 of a Director's order requiring them to undertake work and submit a final report regarding environmental conditions.

The Tribunal found that the section was not an order to monitor, record and report, and that granting the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay until the appeals are finally disposed of.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties jointly requested a stay of certain portions of the order to allow time for expert meetings and potential resolution.

The Tribunal found no statutory bar to the stay and granted it on consent until December 31, 2016.

The Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned its new development charges by-law.

The new by-law eliminated distinctions between unit sizes, which the Board found resulted in smaller units unfairly subsidizing larger ones.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably applied the Development Charges Act and had sufficient evidence to find cross-subsidization.

The Board's decision to reinstate the former by-law's categories was a reasonable exercise of its remedial authority.