Roberto David Aburto

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on an application to amend the Official Plan to redesignate lands from 'Restricted Agricultural Area' to 'Residential'.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County Official Plan, and maintains the intent of the Town Official Plan, provided development occurs on full municipal services.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Official Plan Amendment as modified by the settlement.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against the City of Kingston's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals on consent.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and agreed to schedule a five-week hearing on the merits commencing in January 2024.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the procedural schedule and format for two upcoming motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation, rejected the claimant's request to bifurcate the hearing into separate entitlement and quantum phases, and directed that both motions be heard concurrently over a five-day period, with the claimant presenting its motion first.

The appellant appealed the 2016 taxation year assessment of a unique waterfront property, arguing the current value should be reduced to $6,700,000 with a further equity adjustment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the correct current value was the 2012 sale price of $13,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2012 arm's-length sale of the subject property, which occurred four months after the valuation day, was the best evidence of its current value.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparable sales due to arbitrary, unquantified adjustments.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equity adjustment, concluding the correct current value for the 2016 taxation year was $13,000,000.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had refused the landlord access to the property, failed to pay rent since May 2021, and ignored a Board order to pay rent in trust.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, did not raise questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed to delay eviction and avoid paying rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the automatic stay of eviction was set aside.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in the City of Kingston, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to numerous individuals whose requests were not objected to by the appellant, deferring the objected requests to a future CMC.

The Tribunal also granted party status to No Clearcuts Kingston Inc., applying the Oakville factors and finding that the group's participation would advance the public interest without causing prejudice or a multiplicity of proceedings.

A further CMC was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The applicant sought minor variances and consents to sever a corner lot to facilitate the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consents subject to conditions and authorized the minor variance subject to a site plan condition.

A neighbour appealed both decisions, arguing the variance was major, while the applicant appealed the site plan condition.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's appeal and dismissed the neighbour's appeals, finding that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act and would preserve high-priority trees, and that the consents satisfied the criteria under section 51(24).

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to determine whether 3930149 Canada Inc. had standing to request a Hearing of Necessity regarding a proposed expropriation, and to determine the required pre-hearing disclosure.

The Requestor claimed standing as an 'owner' based on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the registered owner, but refused to provide the agreement to the City.

The Tribunal ordered the Requestor to provide a redacted copy of the agreement to the City to establish its standing before a hearing date could be set or further disclosure ordered.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 65-unit multi-residential property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach but disputed the potential gross income and the capitalization rate.

The Assessment Review Board determined the potential gross income by substituting market rents for subsidized units and established a capitalization rate of 7.16% based on comparable properties.

The Board concluded the current value of the property was $10,409,916, which was reduced to $9,577,000 after applying an agreed 8% equitable adjustment, resulting in a reduction from the returned assessment of $9,970,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's denial of two consent applications to create three lots (two severed, one retained) on a rural property.

The City initially opposed the applications due to the property's proximity to an active aggregate pit and natural heritage features.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement after the applicant provided a comprehensive Mineral Resource Impact Assessment demonstrating no conflict with future aggregate extraction.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning and aggregate resources evidence, finding the proposed severances met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and conformed to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the consents were granted subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant, a non-profit environmental education centre, sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The respondent assessment corporation opposed the application, arguing the centre lacked a structured curriculum, regular students, and formal instructors.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the primary purpose of the centre, determined objectively, was educational.

The court held that a flexible approach to the definition of a 'seminary of learning' was appropriate, and the centre's workshops, symposiums, and experiential learning programs sufficiently constituted a focused educational agenda.

The moving party, a heritage foundation, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that granted zoning and Official Plan amendments to allow the construction of two high-rise buildings in downtown Kingston.

The moving party argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to interpret the Official Plan as a whole and incorrectly interpreting specific compatibility criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of the Official Plan's competing objectives of heritage preservation and urban intensification was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable error of law.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent to sever and minor variances required to create a new lot for a long semi-detached dwelling and establish a parking easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance had regard for the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal noted the development represented appropriate infill intensification in a transit-friendly area and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

The moving parties requested the reinstatement of a withdrawn 2016 property assessment appeal and permission to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The property was sold in 2016, and the former owner had withdrawn the 2016 appeal under the mistaken belief that the new owner could simply take over the proceeding.

The Board found that the new owner was not a party to the 2016 appeal and could not request its reinstatement.

However, the Board granted the former owner's request to reinstate the 2016 appeal, finding it was withdrawn in error, and added the new owner as a party.

The Board denied the new owner's request to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year because he failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26, having received the Notice of Assessment but failing to appeal within the statutory timeframe.

The moving party, who purchased the subject property in May 2016, requested the reinstatement of a withdrawn 2016 assessment appeal filed by the previous owner, and sought to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The previous owner also requested reinstatement of the 2016 appeal, stating it was withdrawn in error.

The Assessment Review Board denied the moving party's request to reinstate the 2016 appeal as he was not a party to that proceeding.

However, the Board granted the previous owner's request to reinstate the 2016 appeal, finding it was withdrawn in error, and added the moving party as a party to that appeal.

The Board denied the moving party's request to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year because he failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26, having not filed the request within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 113-unit multi-residential rental building in Kingston for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The parties agreed that the income approach was the best method for determining the current value, but disagreed on the appropriate capitalization rate and whether the direct comparison approach should be used as a check.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the direct comparison approach due to a lack of similar comparable properties.

After analyzing the comparable sales provided by both experts, the Board determined a base capitalization rate of 5.89%, resulting in an overall capitalization rate of 7.16% and a current value of $20,103,701.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required based on the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties, reducing the final assessed value to $18,500,000.

The defendants brought a motion to adjourn a three-week trial scheduled to commence in one month, citing the plaintiffs' late production of documents and two expert reports.

The plaintiffs agreed to withdraw one expert report if the trial proceeded.

The court applied the factors from Ariston Realty and Igbinosun, finding that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating why they could not proceed or how their defence would be significantly compromised.

The court emphasized the prejudice of delay to the plaintiffs in an eight-year-old action and dismissed the motion, without prejudice to the defendants seeking relief at trial regarding the late productions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider a proposed settlement of appeals by McMaster University against the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties agreed to amend the 2019 DC By-law to implement a statutory exemption for university development under the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities Act.

Finding the proposed amendment fair and reasonable, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendment.

The defendants, an athlete and a national sports organization, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from alleged harassment and assault.

The defendants argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had already pursued a complaint under the organization's internal disciplinary code, making the civil action an abuse of process or collateral attack.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the internal disciplinary process did not have the authority to award compensatory damages for tortious conduct, and therefore did not oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts.