Sarah Spitz

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the conduct of a five-week hearing regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The order establishes deadlines for documentary discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing steps leading up to the hearing scheduled to commence on April 6, 2027.

A Case Management Conference was held to establish a procedural order and schedule hearing dates for a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on November 30, 2026, and issued a Procedural Order governing the pre-hearing steps, including documentary discovery, witness statements, and expert reports.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the pre-hearing steps and the 19-day hearing of consolidated claims for expropriation compensation brought by Bendale Parkway Limited, Mirmor Investments Limited, and Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. against Metrolinx.

The order establishes a timetable for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding three applications for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the Scarborough Subway Extension Project.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the applications brought by the fee simple owners and a former tenant be consolidated and heard together.

A four-week hearing on the merits was scheduled for May and June 2026.

The claimants brought a motion seeking post-judgment interest on their settled costs and an order that the respondent was not entitled to set off costs awarded to it by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The Tribunal found that because the parties had settled the costs without a Tribunal order, post-judgment interest under section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act did not accrue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to vary or relieve the claimants from costs orders made by appellate courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications for provisional consent and minor variances to sever a lot and build two single-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the requested variances for lot frontage, area, coverage, and height met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting the absence of evidence demonstrating adverse impacts.

The appeals were allowed, and the consent and variances were approved subject to conditions.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural order to change the hearing start date from June 15, 2025, to November 24, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and ordered the hearing to commence on the new date, with all other aspects of the procedural order remaining the same.

The claimants sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of their properties by Metrolinx for the Scarborough Subway Extension Project.

At the first Case Management Conference, new counsel for the claimants requested an adjournment to familiarize themselves with the proceedings after previous counsel withdrew due to a conflict of interest.

The respondent consented to the adjournment, noting that a third related application was expected to be filed and should be heard together.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled the continuation of the Case Management Conference for January 22, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding four applications for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a multi-unit property for the Ontario Line Subway Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications be heard together and issued a procedural order scheduling a 15-day video hearing on the merits for September 2025.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a proposed residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant revised the application to seek only one variance for an increase in maximum lot coverage from 30 percent to 32 percent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient planning evidence to demonstrate that the requested variance maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, or was minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was not authorized.

Following a successful claim for injurious affection where no land was taken, the claimant sought costs under section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The respondent conceded liability for costs but disputed the reasonableness of several specific items, including costs for a change of counsel, prior counsel assessment, and various motions.

The Tribunal applied the principle that expropriation costs are awarded on a full indemnity basis subject to reasonableness.

The Tribunal disallowed costs related to the change of counsel and assessment, reduced costs for bill preparation and cost recovery, but allowed the majority of the disputed motion and consulting costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $355,603.68 in costs plus $7,500 for the costs motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The parties requested a further CMC in the fall to allow time for an ongoing Environmental Assessment in the Golden Mile area to unfold.

The Tribunal agreed and scheduled a fourth CMC for October 31, 2024.

A Case Management Conference was held to organize the hearing of a claim for compensation brought by the claimant against the respondent under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on November 4, 2024, by video.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings leading up to a 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 16, 2025, regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

At a pre-hearing conference for a compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had narrowed the issues and reduced the required hearing time to three and one-half days.

The parties also requested a schedule adjustment to accommodate the Passover holiday.

The Tribunal granted the requests and issued a revised procedural order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to a revised hearing date of October 28, 2024, and submitted a proposed revised Procedural Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appended Procedural Order govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The Claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act after the Ministry of Transportation closed one of two driveway accesses to its mixed-use property during highway improvement works.

The Respondent argued the closed access and the commercial use of the property were illegal, precluding compensation.

The Tribunal found that the access and commercial use were legal, having been implicitly approved and in existence for decades.

Applying the test from Antrim, the Tribunal determined the closure caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Claimant's use of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the Claimant's 'Cost to Cure' appraisal approach and awarded $149,160 to construct an internal loop driveway, plus $27,500 for disturbance damages related to the land required for the new driveway.

The Claimant sought compensation for injurious affection after the Ministry of Transportation closed one of two accesses to its mixed-use property during highway improvements.

The Ministry argued the closed access and the commercial use of the property were illegal, precluding compensation.

The Tribunal found that the access and commercial use were legal and grandfathered.

Applying the test for injurious affection where no land is taken, the Tribunal awarded the Claimant $149,160 based on a 'cost to cure' approach to construct an internal loop driveway, plus $27,500 for disturbance damages.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the property at 123 Wynford Drive.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

A nine-day hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence in May 2024.

The Moving Defendants, Fulton Development Inc. and 2580867 Ontario Corp., brought a motion to strike all or portions of the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, which included derivative and oppression claims.

The claims arose from a failed real estate transaction, a $500,000 loan, and the alleged misappropriation and improper distribution of a $327,500 refunded deposit by certain directors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the derivative and oppression claims viable and noting that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order granting leave for the derivative action.

On consent, a crossclaim and counterclaim from a related 2019 action were consolidated with the current action, and the balance of the 2019 action was stayed.