Peter A. Hertz

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment application to facilitate the development of two single detached dwellings on smaller lots.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which included deeper lots, had regard for matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the Wellington County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Township was directed to amend the zoning by-law with a site-specific residential zone subject to a holding provision.

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

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, establishing the timetable for documentary discovery, mediation, examinations for discovery, and the exchange of expert reports leading up to an eight-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 1, 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Cambridge's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal consolidated the two appeals, granted participant status to two entities, and scheduled a 15-day hearing for November 2026.

The claimants brought a motion to compel the respondent City to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The questions related to offers made by the City in 2018 to purchase the expropriated property and a neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found that questions regarding the expropriated property were relevant to determining market value and were not protected by settlement or litigation privilege.

Questions regarding the neighbouring property were deemed irrelevant.

The City was ordered to produce appraisal reports and related correspondence concerning the 2018 offer for the expropriated property.

The City of Waterloo brought a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing dates for an expropriation compensation claim and adjourn the proceeding pending the determination of a related Superior Court civil action.

The civil action concerned a prior planning settlement and whether the claimants were obliged to convey a portion of the expropriated lands to the City.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act and that the title issues raised in the civil action are irrelevant to the expropriation proceeding, as the City acquired full fee simple interest in the entire property through the expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that the expropriation proceeding can proceed concurrently with the civil action.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriation Act, the respondent municipality requested that the scheduled hearing dates be vacated pending the resolution of a related civil action concerning title to the expropriated property.

The claimants opposed the request, arguing it would cause prejudice and that the civil action lacked merit.

The Tribunal found that the request raised a jurisdictional question regarding title that could not be adequately addressed without a formal motion.

The Tribunal directed the parties to bring a motion in writing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.

Appeals were brought against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in Cambridge.

The applicant appealed a Holding Provision in the ZBA that required the realignment of an existing access easement to provide access to an abutting landlocked property.

A neighbouring property owner appealed both instruments, arguing they were premature until interconnected access was secured in the OPA.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, finding that the Holding Provision was an appropriate use of section 36 of the Planning Act, supported by the Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest by ensuring safe, two-way interconnected access.

The Tribunal declined to modify the OPA, concluding the Holding Provision sufficiently addressed the access issue.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Cambridge's refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waterloo Region District School Board on consent.

A request for party status by adjacent landowners Funchal Enterprises Inc. and Urros Investments Inc. was denied, but they were granted participant status with leave to re-apply for party status at the next CMC.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation once the related draft plan of subdivision appeal is filed.

The claimants sought compensation under the Expropriation Act following the expropriation of their property by the municipality for parkland.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal ratified a consent Procedural Order, directed the parties to explore Tribunal-assisted mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and an eight-day Merit Hearing.

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title over a three-foot strip of land abutting their cottage property.

The court found that while the applicants had actual possession of the disputed lands, they failed to establish an intention to exclude the true owners or that they effectively excluded them.

The disputed lands were open and accessible to the community, and the true owners frequently crossed and used the lands without restriction.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit two additional residential units.

At the first Case Management Conference, two nearby residents requested and were granted party status without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day merit hearing and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals concerning a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment in the City of Cambridge.

The amendments seek to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development, including a 10-storey building.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the City's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 60-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and a residents' association, and participant status to several individuals.

A second CMC and a three-day hearing were scheduled to allow for ongoing settlement discussions between the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment for properties in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 25-day video hearing to commence in March 2024.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment for a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal noted that the parties had not made significant progress in scoping the Issues List as previously ordered.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to allow the parties additional time to refine the Issues List and ordered that a revised draft Procedural Order be provided in advance.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to the applicant and municipalities on the respective files.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the appeals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to refine the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to the applicant, the City, and the Region on the respective files.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and directed the parties to refine their issues list before scheduling a hearing on the merits.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of I.R. Smith J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the amount of $5,000.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs to the respondent in the agreed amount of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant property owner appealed a decision granting the respondent municipality a prescriptive easement for a watermain installed on the property in 1979-1980.

The appellant argued the municipality's use was not open, that the burden of proof regarding permission was reversed, and that public authorities with expropriation powers cannot acquire prescriptive easements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably inferred the owners had actual or imputed knowledge of the watermain, the lack of evidence of permission rendered any burden of proof issue moot, and there is no legal bar preventing municipalities from acquiring prescriptive easements.