Roberto David Aburto

The plaintiff, a resident of Howe Island, brought an action against the Province of Ontario, the County of Frontenac, and Transport Canada after the capacity of the Howe Island ferry was reduced from 15 to 10 vehicles due to safety regulations.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff to maintain a specific level of public service, and that the claim for pure economic loss was untenable.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

At a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to Atura Power and participant status to three local residents.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and scheduled a 15-day merits hearing.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which regulate development on Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villiers Island) in Toronto's Port Lands.

The modifications address building heights, density, land uses, and meanwhile uses.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the applicable Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant brought a motion to modify procedural dates and revise the Issues List for an upcoming hearing regarding a Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The appellant and the Town had resolved certain issues and requested their removal, along with the addition of one related sub-issue.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it had the authority to make procedural directions to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious hearing, and that the amendments would not prejudice any parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the approval authority's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Town of Carleton Place on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties time to frame the issues and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment to redevelop the Richard L. Hearn Generating Station into a mixed-use neighbourhood.

At a Case Management Conference, the Toronto Port Authority, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, GFL Environmental Inc., Amrize Canada Inc., and Portlands Energy Centre L.P. sought and were granted party status on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and issues list.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also directed that the related appeals be heard together and established a timeline for the parties to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order ahead of the next Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2436091 Ontario Ltd. against the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a development of approximately 1,500 dwelling units.

The Tribunal scheduled a 23-day hearing to commence on June 1, 2026, and established the issues list and procedural dates.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's by-law designating its property, a former church, as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly submitted that the appeal be allowed in part to amend the statement of cultural heritage value and description of heritage attributes.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission and the uncontested expert cultural heritage evidence, allowing the appeal in part and amending the by-law to reflect the revised schedule of heritage attributes.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property and construct two semi-detached dwellings.

The City did not attend the hearing but provided a planning report supporting the applications subject to conditions.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate low-rise intensification, is compatible with the neighbourhood, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and authorized the consent and variances subject to the City's recommended conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment for a proposed mixed-use residential development at 280 Commissioners Street.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to four entities: 115 Saulter South LP, Toronto Port Authority, PT Studios Inc., and Atura Power.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to file a final draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day video hearing for April and May 2027.

The appellants appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a new single detached dwelling within 500 metres of a former waste disposal site.

The municipality did not call evidence at the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and hydrogeological evidence, the Tribunal found no risk of contamination to the subject property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would facilitate the construction of 660 residential units.

A Case Management Conference was held where the applicant for the by-law amendment was granted party status.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence in May 2026.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation against the Town of Carleton Place's new Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The Tribunal granted party status to Inverness Homes Inc., approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on August 10, 2026.

The municipality initiated an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to designate a new provincially significant wetland.

Two sets of appellants appealed the amendments.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal ordered that the appeals be severed because their factual underpinnings are site-specific.

Second Case Management Conferences were scheduled for both sets of appeals to address procedural orders, motions, and scheduling.

The parties settled an expropriation compensation claim for $50,000 plus reasonable costs to be agreed upon or assessed.

The claimant subsequently brought a motion for costs of $401,387.18.

The City opposed the quantum and sought its own costs, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably by pursuing a speculative damages claim and delaying settlement.

The Tribunal held that the settlement agreement did not permit the City to claim its own costs and that it could not evaluate the merits of the unlitigated compensation claim on a costs motion.

The Tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable and awarded the claimant its costs, subject to specific reductions for a technology fee, excessive consultant hours, and duplicative legal time.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

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

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a proposed 1,500-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and a group of neighbouring residents, and participant status to two other residents.

A five-week hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence in June 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development on a contaminated brownfield site.

The proposed development includes the remediation of the site, which features a Provincially Significant Wetland and is adjacent to the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Tribunal found that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan, as it promotes efficient land use, intensification, and brownfield remediation.

However, the Tribunal did not accept jurisdiction over the capping of the wetland itself, as the PPS prohibits development in such areas, and instead approved the applicant's alternative requested relief.

The applicant, Charles Frederick Armstrong, challenged the constitutionality of the Township of Russell’s Sign By-Law, which restricted the display of municipal election signs.

The court found that the by-law violated Armstrong’s freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the violation was not justified under section 1.

The court also found that the Township was unjustly enriched by requiring Armstrong to pay $450 for the return of his signs, which had been removed under the unconstitutional by-law.