Raivo Uukkivi

The appellants, previously found in contempt of an injunction and fined $1 million, brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing their appeal for delay and sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

They also sought to introduce a new ground of appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, based on a misapplication of criminal practice directions to a civil proceeding.

The court granted the motion to set aside the dismissal and extend time, but imposed strict conditions, finding the ineffective assistance of counsel argument weak in a civil context.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted revisions to the Procedural Order for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan hearing, deferring its start by one week to allow experts to review recently circulated transportation studies and development plans.

The Tribunal also granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on Appeal 166.

Finally, the Tribunal allowed a settlement motion by the City of Vaughan, approving modifications to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan for a specific site, finding the modifications represented good planning and satisfied statutory requirements.

The moving party, a municipal councillor, sought a stay pending her appeal of a judgment that found she violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and declared her council seat vacant.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the court found no irreparable harm because it ordered the municipality not to fill the vacancy pending the appeal.

The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in municipal integrity, and the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Integrity Commissioner appealed a decision imposing a reprimand on a city councillor who breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council meeting regarding a debt owed to a non-profit corporation of which he was a director.

The Commissioner argued the only appropriate penalty was removal from office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that recent amendments to the Act broadened judicial discretion regarding penalties, and the application judge made no error in principle in imposing a reprimand given the mitigating factors.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 28-storey residential building.

Following a public hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties.

The order establishes the organization of the hearing, pre-hearing requirements, and the final issues list.

The Township of Evanturel brought a motion challenging the Ontario Land Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an application by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) regarding the apportionment of maintenance costs for three railway crossings.

The Township argued there was no underlying statute, order, or agreement granting jurisdiction.

The ONTC argued that agreements existed and requested the striking of an affidavit sworn by the Township's lawyer.

The Tribunal struck the lawyer's affidavit as impermissible legal argument and dismissed the jurisdictional motion, finding that the factual dispute over the existence of cost-sharing agreements required a full hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a medium-density residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent property owner.

The City indicated it would not take a position but would attend for information.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 28-storey residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to two neighbouring property owners.

The parties requested a 10-day hearing, and the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and outstanding issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

Following an application regarding the continuation of a legal non-conforming use, the applicant sought costs of $60,186.30 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success, or alternatively $20,000.

The court found there was genuinely divided success as the applicant was successful on the declaration but overreached on the injunction, which the respondent successfully resisted.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $38,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the continuation of legal non-conforming uses on his property, affirmation of an existing injunction against the Town, and an order to register court judgments on title.

The court granted declarations affirming that the property's uses, including a motor vehicle compound, were a continuation of previously recognized legal non-conforming uses.

The court dismissed the requests for an affirmation of the injunction, finding no contravention by the Town, and for an order to register judgments, deeming it a matter for the Land Titles system.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that struck 8 of 15 issues from a draft Issues List during a case management conference.

The moving parties argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it was premature, without prejudice to the moving parties raising the issues at an appropriate time in the future.

The plaintiff hotel sought an injunction to restrain the neighbouring defendant tire shop from servicing commercial vehicles, alleging the noise constituted a nuisance and breached municipal by-laws and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

The court found that the noise from servicing commercial vehicles likely caused an adverse effect, breaching s. 9(1) of the EPA and, consequently, the municipal zoning by-law.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from servicing commercial vehicles between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. to prevent irreparable harm to the hotel's reputation.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to prevent the Town of Caledon from enforcing a work order requiring the removal of 5,500 tonnes of illegal fill from his property, as well as an order of mandamus for document disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, noting the high hurdle for enjoining a public authority enforcing its by-laws in the public interest.

Finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Town, the court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief and mandamus.

The appellants sought to develop land pursuant to an amended development agreement with the Town of Ajax.

The agreement contained repurchase terms that could be invoked if the developer failed to take reasonable steps to proceed with construction by a specified deadline, provided it was not awaiting comments or confirmation of approval on any application from the Town.

The Town terminated the agreement and exercised its repurchase rights, claiming the developer's revised site plan application was incomplete and the construction deadline had passed.

The trial judge found in favour of the Town.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in failing to apply the Planning Act's definition of a complete site plan and in conflating completeness with readiness for approval.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the site plan application was incomplete as a matter of contract interpretation because the developer had not submitted all requested materials and was not awaiting Town approval but rather the Town was awaiting responses from the developer.

The appellant town appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that its large-scale commercial aggregate extraction operation on property located in the respondent township was a permitted use under the township's zoning by-law or alternatively constituted a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The application judge found that the extraction operation was not permitted under the zoning by-law and did not qualify as a legal non-conforming use because the historical use of the property was as a municipal park with only incidental and ancillary extraction for municipal purposes.

The court found that the expansion from incidental extraction to large-scale commercial extraction constituted a change in the type of use rather than a mere intensification.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs, Central Park Ajax 1 Developments Phase 1 Inc. and LeMine Real Estate Consulting Inc., brought a claim for $300 million in damages and declaratory relief against The Corporation of the Town of Ajax and Rob Ford, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and unlawful interference.

The core dispute revolved around the Town's right to repurchase development lands due to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to commence construction by a contractual deadline.

The court was asked to determine two key issues: (1) whether LeMine was awaiting approval for a site plan application from the Town on or prior to July 17, 2017, which would invalidate the repurchase notice, and (2) if not, whether the Town had the right to repurchase the lands due to LeMine's failure to start construction by July 16, 2017.

The court found that LeMine had not submitted a complete site plan application sufficient for council consideration and was therefore not "awaiting confirmation of approval." Furthermore, the court interpreted the development agreement, considering both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, to conclude that LeMine was contractually obliged to commence construction by July 15, 2017, and failed to do so.

Consequently, the Town's repurchase notice was deemed valid, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on these issues.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to amend an Environmental Compliance Approval to permit the acceptance and transfer of asbestos-contaminated materials at a waste disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellant sought to withdraw its appeals.

The Tribunal found the proposed amended Environmental Compliance Approval consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissed them, and ordered the Director to issue the amended approval.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order directing the parties to assemble an Agreed Statement of Facts and an Agreed Identification of Issues ahead of a Pre-hearing Settlement Conference regarding the proposed refusal to renew an archaeological licence.

A one-day conference was scheduled for April 11, 2016.