Paul Ledroit

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the conduct of the upcoming hearing regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing November 9, 2026.

The issues to be determined at the hearing include the market value of the expropriated lands and compensation for the removal of lawn, shrubs, and trees.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to a 15-day hearing commencing in January 2027 and submitted a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The parties attended a Telephone Conference Call regarding five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation in London.

The parties requested an update on proposed mediation dates and sought minor amendments to the Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal ordered the revised Procedural Order to be in full force and effect and confirmed that the Case Coordinator would communicate with the Mediation Team regarding the February mediation dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation following the expropriation of portions of a property by the City of Windsor.

The Tribunal scheduled a Tribunal-facilitated mediation session and a three-day video hearing.

A Procedural Order was approved, setting out the issues list and deadlines for the exchange of evidence and expert reports.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider the claimant's motion for leave to amend its Amended Notice of Arbitration in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The parties consented to the revised Proposed Amended Claim and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal granted the motion for leave to amend and approved the Procedural Order, setting the schedule for the 15-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of a proceeding regarding the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on January 19, 2026, for a period of five days.

The order sets out the timetable for the exchange of documents, discoveries, expert reports, and other pre-hearing requirements.

A case management conference was held for five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation in the Community of Tempo, London, Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the five files be heard together in accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A ten-day video hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a procedural order was issued to govern the pre-hearing requirements, including mediation, discovery, and the exchange of expert reports.

A case management conference was held regarding five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal ordered that the five appeals be heard together and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for April 2026.

A procedural order was approved to govern the pre-hearing requirements.

The claimant brought a proceeding under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation regarding a property in Puslinch.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of the proceeding leading up to a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 3, 2025.

The order established a timetable for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation following an expropriation by the Thames Valley District School Board.

The Respondent argued the Claimant's Notice of Arbitration lacked sufficient particulars regarding damages.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a second CMC, instead establishing a procedural timetable for the amendment of pleadings, discoveries, and a 14-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following the partial expropriation of the claimants' property by the City of Windsor.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a Procedural Order, directed the parties on mediation, and scheduled a three-day video hearing for November 2024.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party filed costs submissions, no costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finalizing equalization payments and property division in a matrimonial case that followed the appellant's conviction for first-degree murder of his wife.

The motion judge ordered the appellant to pay the Estate $410,000 plus interest, with payment secured through a vesting order on property, vesting of bank account funds for child support, and transfer of 50% of the appellant's pension to the Estate.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: lack of procedural fairness, reliance on a settlement conference statement, unequal equalization payment, and failure to adjust child support.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, no error in relying on the sworn Net Family Property statement, and that the unequal division was discretionary and justified given the circumstances.

An applicant mother sought a declaration of true ownership of a family cottage, asserting a purchase money resulting trust, against her daughter, the registered owner.

The court examined the transferor's intent at the time of purchase, considering tax planning advice and the registration of a mortgage.

It found that the parents intended for the daughter to be the beneficial owner, primarily to avoid capital gains and protect the asset from future creditors or matrimonial claims involving the daughter.

The application was dismissed, affirming the daughter's ownership, though her liability under the original mortgage was maintained, while a later increased mortgage without consideration was deemed not to reflect indebtedness.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for specific performance regarding a commercial property, the defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff's motion was denied because it failed to disclose the purchase of an adequate replacement property.

The court found the plaintiff's non-disclosure inappropriate and awarded costs to the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the defendant's counsel's hourly rate from $700 to $350, fixing total costs at $32,238.35.

A property developer sued a municipal fire department and its officials alleging negligence and misfeasance in public office after inspectors issued fire safety inspection orders requiring upgrades to fire alarm audibility levels in residential buildings.

The orders were based on an Office of the Fire Marshal guideline recommending a 60 dBA audibility level, though that standard was not prescribed by statute or regulation.

The plaintiff argued the inspectors exceeded their statutory authority under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act and enforced a non‑binding guideline as if it were law.

The court held the inspectors acted in good faith, relied on guidance from the Office of the Fire Marshal, and believed they had authority to address potential fire safety risks.

The plaintiff failed to prove deliberate unlawful conduct or knowledge of lack of authority required for misfeasance, and negligence was also not established.

The appellant sued her former lawyer for professional negligence, alleging he settled her motor vehicle accident claim too soon and for too little.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the lawyer met the standard of care and the appellant was motivated to settle early.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in qualifying a mediator as an expert and in permitting a defence expert to testify despite a breach of an order excluding witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her conclusion that the lawyer met the standard of care.

Following an arbitration decision awarding the applicant statutory accident benefits, the parties could not agree on the expenses of the hearing.

The applicant claimed approximately $40,000 in fees and disbursements, while the insurer suggested approximately $14,000.

The arbitrator assessed the costs, applying a ratio of four hours of preparation time for every hour of hearing time, and disallowed expenses related to mediation and certain expert preparation time.

The insurer was ordered to pay $23,239.21 in reimbursement of the applicant's arbitration expenses.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision that denied him ongoing weekly income benefits under subsection 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator had found that while the appellant could not return to his pre-accident work as a tile layer, he was capable of performing a customer service position at Goodwill Industries after completing a work conditioning program.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence regarding the appellant's physical restrictions, educational limitations, and capacity for suitable employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits after 156 weeks, arguing the applicant was not continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident work as a tile setter.

However, the arbitrator concluded there were suitable alternative occupations available, specifically a cashier position following a work conditioning program.

The arbitrator also allowed the applicant to recalculate his pre-accident income using the completion method of accounting, which increased his weekly benefit to the $600 maximum.

The applicant was awarded outstanding benefits up to the date he would have completed the work conditioning program, plus interest.