Robert John Wood

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment for a 49-storey mixed-use development, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests for Party status.

The Tribunal granted Party status to three adjacent property owners—The Badminton and Racquet Club of Toronto, Allenby Gardens Home Corp., and Gerenby Investments Limited—finding they had direct interests in the appeal and their involvement would assist the Tribunal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for compensation for the expropriation of a subsurface portion of a property by Metrolinx.

The parties were not prepared for the conference but indicated they were engaged in productive mediation discussions and communicating with other nearby property owners.

The Tribunal found it premature to schedule a second conference and advised the parties that Tribunal-led mediation could be arranged.

The appellant property owners association appealed the dismissal of its action in proprietary estoppel, claiming it had acquired an easement over a City-owned water lot where it had installed seasonal docks for decades.

The trial judge found that the City's 1956 policy permitting the dock was not contractual and the City never made an unambiguous promise not to revoke it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the requirements for proprietary estoppel were not met.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s proprietary estoppel claim, the defendant municipality sought substantial indemnity costs, or alternatively partial indemnity costs.

The court held the matter raised no novel legal issue and was decided largely on fact-specific findings, while finding no unreasonable litigation conduct by either side.

The court declined to apply enhanced offer-to-settle consequences under rule 49.10, treating the offer as effectively impracticable in the circumstances.

Applying proportionality and indemnity principles, the court awarded the successful defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $143,519.71 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable forthwith.

The appellant appealed under s. 69(3) of the Planning Act seeking a reduction in application fees paid for a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The appellant paid over $3.2 million in fees between 2016 and 2024 and sought a refund of approximately $1.5 million, arguing the fees exceeded the municipality's anticipated costs.

The Tribunal found that the Engineering Review Fee was unreasonably based on an outdated, higher construction cost estimate and ordered a refund of $638,668.56.

The Tribunal also ordered a refund of $113,991.10 for Landscape Review Fees that were improperly charged under the 2024 Tariff.

However, the Tribunal found the remaining residual fees were reasonable and connected to the municipality's costs for processing the complex application.

In an expropriation proceeding, the respondent Metrolinx brought a motion for directions regarding documentary discovery, an amendment to its Reply, and the scheduling of mediation.

The Tribunal ordered the claimants to produce the requested financial records underlying their business loss claim and permitted Metrolinx to amend its Reply, finding no prejudice to the claimants.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation at this stage, noting it is rarely productive when involuntary, but directed the parties to confer regarding mediation and revised the procedural order accordingly.

The court dismissed GIPOA’s claim for proprietary estoppel against the City of Orillia regarding the use of docks on a city-owned water lot.

The court found that the City had not made an unambiguous promise or assurance to GIPOA, that GIPOA’s reliance was not reasonable, and that the public interest and municipal legislative authority outweighed any equitable claim.

The City’s enforcement of its policies and by-laws was found to be reasonable, and the City was entitled to change its policies and by-laws as circumstances required.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a revised proposal for four new mixed-use buildings containing 1,649 new residential units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal conforms to the Official Plan, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until various preconditions are satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a non-decision by the City of Toronto on a Zoning By-law Application for a mixed-use development.

The parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle on most issues, with a revised proposal reducing the number of new buildings from five to four and adding a public park.

The only remaining issues involve an easement for access to the Danforth GO Station, which the applicant, the City, and Metrolinx are working to resolve.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a commercial property.

The parties agreed to a three-day hearing on the merits to be held in June 2025 and submitted a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps and the hearing itself.

The applicants, beneficiaries of "lost shareholders" of York Downs Golf and Country Club, sought orders to be registered as shareholders and receive distributions after their shares were cancelled under a court-approved plan of arrangement.

They argued the arrangement was unfair/unreasonable under s. 182 OBCA or oppressive under s. 248 OBCA, as they had insufficient time to validate their claims after being located late in the process.

The court dismissed the applications, holding that the prior court approval of the arrangement as fair and reasonable was res judicata and that the arrangement appropriately balanced stakeholder interests.

The court also found no oppression, as the applicants had no reasonable expectation beyond complying with the arrangement's terms, and York Downs had made commercially reasonable efforts to locate shareholders and facilitate claims.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to establish a Procedural Order for an expropriation claim.

The parties disagreed on the timing of mediation.

The Claimants sought early mediation to narrow issues, while the Respondent argued mediation should follow discoveries to ensure sufficient information was available.

The Tribunal directed that mediation occur within sixty days after the completion of Examinations for Discovery and scheduled a six-day hearing on the merits.

Metrolinx brought motions to dismiss proceedings commenced by the claimants to have the Ontario Land Tribunal determine their costs entitlement under section 32 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess costs and could only fix them, asserting that the matter must be referred to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to determine costs.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between fixing and assessing costs does not limit its jurisdiction, and it is not bound by private settlement agreements to refer costs to an assessment officer.

Metrolinx brought motions to dismiss the claimants' proceedings for the determination of costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, arguing that the Ontario Land Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess costs and was required to refer the matter to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to determine costs.

The Tribunal held that its authority is not limited by any distinction between 'fixing' and 'assessing' costs, nor can a private settlement agreement oust its statutory jurisdiction.

Metrolinx brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario Land Tribunal to determine costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, arguing the matter must be referred to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to adjudicate costs disputes.

The Tribunal held that it is not bound by private settlement agreements to refer costs to an assessment officer and that determining costs internally is fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective.

Metrolinx brought motions to dismiss the claimants' proceedings for the determination of costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, arguing that the Ontario Land Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to assess costs directly and was required to refer the matter to an assessment officer of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that it has broad and exclusive jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to determine costs.

The Tribunal held that its discretion to refer a costs matter to an assessment officer does not fetter its authority to adjudicate costs itself, and that a private settlement agreement cannot oust the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction.

The responding parties appealed the site plan application fees levied by the moving party municipality, having paid a portion under protest.

Prior to the scheduled two-day hearing on the merits, the municipality brought a motion to adjourn.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment, converted the hearing event into a Case Management Conference, scheduled a new four-day hearing, and issued procedural directions for the exchange of materials and a hearing plan.

The appellant sought to convert a 2.57-hectare vacant industrial site from an Employment designation to a Residential designation to permit a development comprising townhouses, mid-rise apartments, and a retirement home.

The City of Toronto opposed the conversion, arguing the site should be protected for long-term employment uses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the surrounding area had already transitioned significantly away from traditional employment uses toward retail and residential functions.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed conversion satisfied the criteria under the 2006 Growth Plan, as there was a reasonable need for the conversion, it would not adversely affect the viability of the broader employment area, and the site was not required for long-term employment purposes.

An Interim Order was issued approving the conversion, with directions for the parties to finalize the site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

On a pre-trial Charter application in a sexual assault prosecution, the accused sought a stay of one count based on lost videotaped complainant statements and returned clothing that was never DNA tested.

The court held that the missing video statements were clearly relevant and that the Crown failed to provide an explanation sufficient to rebut unacceptable negligence, establishing a breach of the accused’s s. 7 rights.

However, the court was not prepared on the pre-trial record to determine the relevance of the lost DNA opportunity, or to find actual and irreparable prejudice justifying a stay under s. 24(1).

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to revival at trial.

The City of Orillia appealed a lower court's finding that a commercial lease term was ambiguous, arguing the lease expired in 2029, not 2039.

Metro cross-appealed regarding roof repair obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no ambiguity in the lease, concluding it expired in 2029, and upheld the lower court's decision that Metro was responsible for roof repairs under the lease's "maintain and repair" covenant, distinguishing between repair and replacement in the context of the lease terms and property condition.