Patrick G. Welsh

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's Committee of Adjustment approval of a minor variance application for a proposed three-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Deer Park Residents Group on consent.

The parties agreed to adjourn a related site plan appeal until the minor variance appeals are resolved.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing for the merits of the appeals.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a church property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that varied the compliance dates for the removal of the waste ash and required interim monitoring and capping.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the amendment of the Director's Order and dismissed the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted further adjournments of three inter-related appeals concerning Director's Orders for three waste disposal sites in northern Ontario.

The adjournments were granted to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and await the outcome of related civil proceedings regarding an indemnity agreement.

The moving parties requested to schedule a preliminary motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a site, to add parties, and to order disclosure.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that the issues raised required a full hearing to resolve contested facts and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or irrelevant.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of unprocessed waste ash deposited at a church property.

During a telephone conference call, the parties consented to a schedule for pre-hearing motions, document exchange, and peremptory hearing dates.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions formalizing the agreed-upon schedule.

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Greenpath Parties for failing to comply with a previous Tribunal order requiring full disclosure of relevant documents.

The Tribunal found that while the self-represented appellant failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain documents in his power or control, he did not show wilful disregard for the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss the appeals, but ordered that the Greenpath Parties and their witnesses are prohibited from relying on any documents at the hearing that were not disclosed by the date of the order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a property.

At a preliminary hearing, the appellants sought a stay of the order pending the resolution of the appeals.

The Director consented to a stay of most items in the order, as there was no evidence of potential harm to human health or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part and also granted participant status to the City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association for the purpose of a forthcoming motion to revoke the order against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The Regional Municipality of Peel brought a motion to revoke a Director's Order regarding the removal of waste ash from a site, requesting the motion be heard prior to the main appeals.

The City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association sought participant status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted participant status to both entities and ordered that Peel's motion to revoke be heard prior to the hearing of the appeals, subject to a schedule for disclosure.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim to add a claim in nuisance against the respondent for failing to properly remediate contaminated land before selling it.

The motion judge denied the amendment, finding that a nuisance claim requires the interference to originate from outside the plaintiff's land.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that an essential characteristic of the tort of nuisance is that the alleged nuisance must emanate from somewhere other than the plaintiff's own land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence to justify the application judge's order given the appellant's torrent of litigation against the respondents.

The respondents were awarded costs of $18,400.

In CCAA proceedings involving shipping companies, the court addressed issues arising from a Claims Process Order and a referee’s report adjudicating maritime claims.

The court held that the referee was best positioned to determine entitlement to costs arising from the claims adjudication and directed that the referee address costs in accordance with the draft order.

The court declined to restrict cost submissions to certain claimants, holding that all claimants should be on equal footing.

A request to reconsider the referee’s decision or to receive further evidence was premature because no formal motion had been served.

The referee’s report was confirmed, the monitor’s eighth report was approved, and the monitor was discharged subject to conditions.