Robert A. Robinson

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding five appeals of the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-law 1137-2022.

The parties advised they were in ongoing discussions and expected to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List by late June.

The Tribunal scheduled a further video Case Management Conference for June 26, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order, an estimated hearing length, and availability dates by June 19, 2023.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that granted development charge credits to a group of developers for both work performed and cash contributions made under a Core Infrastructure Agreement.

The Divisional Court held that while the LPAT had jurisdiction to review the City's refusal to grant credits, it erred in law by treating cash contributions as 'work performed' under section 38(1) of the Development Charges Act.

The Court concluded that cash contributions are not eligible for development charge credits.

The Court also found that a complaint filed by some developers was not out of time.

The moving party, the City of Toronto, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving party's factum.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $10,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that ordered the return of $397,941 in disputed development charges to the respondent developer.

The developer had paid the development charges for two condominium towers based on the municipality's calculations before the building permits were issued, but the municipality later demanded additional charges for the second tower due to a phased rate increase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of the Development Charges Bylaw was reasonable and not open to substantial doubt, and that the case did not raise a point of law of sufficient general importance to warrant the court's attention.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and noting that his conclusions were amply supported by the evidence, particularly the expert reports.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey retirement home in a Highway Commercial zone.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Board failed to properly apply the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, misinterpreted the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and failed to justify how significant departures from density limits and lot coverage requirements could be considered minor.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment.

An arbitrator found the appellant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and directed the parties to request an expense hearing if they could not agree on legal expenses.

The appellant appealed the preliminary decision and sought a stay of the expense hearing.

The Director's Delegate accepted the appeal, finding it raised important and novel issues, including whether impairments should be rated before future surgery.

The Delegate also granted a stay of the expense hearing, concluding it would be more cost-effective and efficient to determine the appeal first, as the expense hearing would likely duplicate the appeal issues.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that allowed a developer's application for minor variances to permit a retirement residence.

The City argued the application should have proceeded as a rezoning and Official Plan amendment, as the proposal changed the permitted use and significantly exceeded lot coverage and density limits.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's legal interpretation of the minor variance test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and its application of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and initially applied for income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer determined the applicant's IRBs to be nil because he had no reported pre-accident income.

The applicant then sought to elect non-earner benefits.

The arbitrator held that the applicant was not entitled to elect non-earner benefits because he was employed at the time of the accident, which qualified him for IRBs and disqualified him from non-earner benefits.

The fact that his IRB quantum was nil did not change his substantive qualification.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to claim non-earner benefits within the required 30-day period without a reasonable explanation, prejudicing the insurer.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1992 and sought ongoing weekly income benefits from two insurers.

The applicant had pre-existing, largely asymptomatic spinal conditions that became symptomatic after the accidents, eventually leading to a cervical laminectomy that resulted in incomplete quadriplegia.

The arbitrator found that both accidents materially contributed to the applicant's disability and that he met the post-156 week disability test.

Both insurers were held fully responsible for the statutory accident benefits without apportionment.

The arbitrator also found a causal connection between the accidents and the surgery, and dismissed one insurer's claim for repayment of benefits.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for over three years.

The insurer terminated benefits on the basis that she no longer met the post-156 week disability test.

An arbitrator dismissed her claim for ongoing benefits and a special award, finding insufficient medical evidence of disability and that the insurer acted reasonably.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the medical evidence or the conclusion that the appellant's failure to pursue recommended psychological counselling was her own responsibility.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied coverage shortly after the accident, asserting the policy had been cancelled.

The appellant failed to submit a formal application for benefits within the two-year limitation period under section 22 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision that the insurer was not estopped from relying on the limitation period, as its denial of coverage did not constitute a waiver of the application requirement.

Furthermore, the Director's Delegate confirmed that arbitrators lack the jurisdiction to grant equitable relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the Insurance Act.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits at the 156-week mark, asserting the applicant no longer met the more onerous disability test of being continuously prevented from engaging in any reasonably suitable employment.

The applicant sought ongoing benefits and a special award.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant required a brief adjustment period to return to work, she did not suffer a continuous disability preventing her from engaging in suitable employment beyond June 1, 1994.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's medical evidence, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's presentation and surveillance footage showing her performing physical tasks without apparent difficulty.

The claim for ongoing benefits after June 1, 1994, and the request for a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly disability benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

She applied for arbitration, claiming entitlement to further benefits under section 19 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule on the basis that she suffered a partial inability to carry on a normal life.

The arbitrator found inconsistencies in the applicant's reporting of her functional abilities and preferred the medical evidence indicating she could still perform the majority of her pre-accident mobility and household activities.

The claim for further benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses as the claim was not totally without merit.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer denied coverage, claiming the applicant had requested to delete all road coverages the day before the accident.

The applicant argued the broker made an error regarding the effective date of the coverage change.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was an insured person at the time of the accident because the broker's error could not unilaterally alter the contract.

However, the arbitrator also held that the applicant was barred from proceeding with his claim because he failed to submit a completed application for statutory accident benefits within the required time limits under section 22(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and the insurer's denial of coverage did not estop them from relying on this requirement.

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

The Insurer reduced and later terminated his weekly income benefits, alleging an overpayment.

The Applicant sought arbitration, claiming his benefits should be based on a $2,400 cash contract he allegedly performed in the four weeks prior to the accident.

The arbitrator found the Applicant lacked credibility and failed to provide objective evidence of the alleged contract or earnings.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant fabricated the contract to inflate his benefits, set the weekly income benefit at the minimum rate of $185.60, and denied the Applicant his expenses.

The applicant, an 87-year-old woman, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing weekly and care benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant failed to attend an independent medical examination.

The arbitrator found the applicant had a reasonable excuse for missing the examination and was not precluded from proceeding.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks due to physical and psychological injuries from the accident, entitling her to ongoing weekly benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded ongoing care benefits at $250 per week and a $2,000 special award under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act, finding the insurer unreasonably terminated benefits without a sound basis.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

She applied for arbitration seeking ongoing weekly benefits under sections 13(1) and 13(8) of the Schedule.

The arbitrator found the applicant was not a credible witness, noting inconsistencies in her testimony and surveillance evidence showing her performing physical activities with relative ease.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks and dismissed the claim for weekly benefits, but awarded the applicant her arbitration expenses.