Robert Robinson

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control applications due to the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to Quayside Block 1 Inc., Quayside Impact Limited Partnership, and Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. Participant status was granted to two neighbourhood associations.

The Tribunal ordered the Site Plan application to be held in abeyance and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

At a case management conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's city-wide Development Charges By-law, the Tribunal scheduled a separate settlement hearing for Tenblock Developments Inc.'s appeal concerning the Toronto Green Standard.

For the remaining appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc., the Tribunal directed Dunpar to bring a motion for determination on threshold issues regarding the by-law's compliance with section 5 of the Development Charges Act, and set a schedule for the motion.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for appeals by Dunpar Homes regarding the City of Toronto's cash-in-lieu of parkland levy and development charge calculation for an industrial development.

The parties requested that the cases be separated, as the parkland appeal may proceed to the courts on a jurisdictional issue, while the development charge appeal is nearing settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the cases to proceed separately and directed the parties to provide written updates by August 1, 2023.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference for two appeals by the appellant regarding a cash-in-lieu of parkland levy and a development charge calculation by the City of Toronto.

The parties requested that the cases be separated, as the parkland appeal may proceed to the courts on a jurisdictional issue, while the development charge appeal is nearing settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to proceed as separate cases and directed the parties to provide a written update by August 1, 2023.

The Appellants appealed the City of Toronto's dismissal of their complaint regarding development charges imposed for the construction of a new single dwelling on their property.

The Appellants argued that fees paid during a 1980 lot severance should exempt them from current development charges, and that the proposed construction was an as-of-right development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed construction constituted a 'development' under the City's Development Charges By-law, triggering the charges.

The Tribunal also held that the demolition of an existing garage did not qualify for a demolition reduction, which applies only to existing dwelling units.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for an 11-storey residential building.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending finalization of the instruments and technical reports.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development in the Port Lands.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that the appeals should proceed now that the Port Lands Official Plan Modification is largely in force.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for March 2023 to allow the applicants to provide updated materials to the City for review.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-law No. 1347-2013.

Most appeals had been resolved or withdrawn, leaving only the appeal by the Humber Bay Landowners Group Inc., which is contingent on the outcome of related civil litigation.

The City requested that the remaining appeal be dismissed, but the Tribunal declined, instructing the City to bring a formal motion if it wished to pursue dismissal.

The City confirmed it would not bring a motion, and the Tribunal directed the appellant to provide an update once the civil litigation concludes.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2519371 Ontario Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications for a 14-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted the Yonge Ridge Homeowners' Association's request to change their status from party to participant.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning a proposed residential building in Toronto.

The City had failed to make a decision on the zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several local groups, scheduled a second Case Management Conference, set a five-day hearing for September 2022, and approved a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Appellant was successful in her appeal of an arbitration decision regarding catastrophic impairment.

She sought $64,003.46 in legal expenses for the appeal.

The Respondent argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate.

The Director's Delegate found the Appellant was entitled to her reasonable expenses, noting her complete success and the novel issues raised.

However, due to the lack of dockets and the excessive hours claimed compared to the Respondent, the Delegate reduced the fee claim to match the Respondent's estimated hours, awarding a total of $21,403.31 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding the Arbitrator erred in law by refusing to rate the Appellant's left upper extremity and right knee impairments because they had not stabilized, and by failing to properly address and rate her claimed sleep disorder and chronic pain.

The preliminary issue of catastrophic impairment was returned to arbitration for a new hearing.

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

Following a preliminary issue hearing where the applicant was found not entitled to elect a non-earner benefit, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 12 of Regulation 664, noting the insurer was entirely successful but the applicant's conduct did not unduly delay the proceeding.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.

Following a successful motion where the applicant was denied interim benefits, the insurer sought its expenses for the motion.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's request to reserve expenses to the full hearing, finding it appropriate to determine them as the arbitrator who heard the preliminary issue.

Applying the criteria under O. Reg. 664, the arbitrator found the insurer was completely successful and entitled to expenses.

However, the arbitrator reduced the claimed preparation time due to duplication and the straightforward nature of the motion, awarding the insurer $1,046.44 in total expenses.

The Ontario Jockey Club applied for a teletheatre licence for a site in Markham known as Heritage Champions.

The Ontario Racing Commission held a hearing with representations from the applicant and the Town of Markham.

The Commission approved the application subject to conditions regarding obtaining a liquor licence, restricted hours of operation, and a prohibition on VLTs or slot machines on the premises.

The Ontario Jockey Club applied for a teletheatre licence for a location in Markham.

The application was considered incomplete by the Administration because it lacked correspondence from the local municipality stating they had no objections.

After a hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission denied the application without prejudice, inviting the applicant to resubmit when complete.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her ongoing weekly benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator had found that the appellant's ongoing pain did not substantially disable her from performing her normal and essential tasks, basing this largely on an unfavourable assessment of her credibility.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate held that there was no basis to interfere with the arbitrator's credibility findings or evaluation of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was denied her appeal expenses.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application for arbitration of accident benefits to combine it with a related court action.

The insurer consented to the withdrawal but sought reimbursement of its $2,000 filing fee, arguing the arbitration was an abuse of process since the applicant knew earlier that a court action was necessary.

The arbitrator found the applicant's conduct was not an abuse of process but was unwise and wasteful, amounting to frivolous or vexatious conduct under section 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act.

The applicant was permitted to withdraw but ordered to reimburse the insurer's $2,000 filing fee within 30 days of resolving the court action.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including weekly income benefits, medical/rehabilitation benefits, and care benefits.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits on the basis that the applicant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable witness, noting significant discrepancies between his testimony and independent records regarding his income and receipt of social assistance.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to establish disability beyond the termination date and set his weekly income benefit at the minimum rate of $185.60.

Claims for a special award and arbitration expenses were dismissed, with the arbitrator noting the applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings.