Sean Brown

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action on behalf of over 350,000 Ontario residents whose personal health information was allegedly accessed without authorization from the COVaxON system by an employee of the defendant.

The parties consented to certification for settlement purposes and a $600,000 all-inclusive settlement fund.

Due to the infeasibility of individual distributions, the net settlement funds were to be distributed cy-près to MediaSmarts, a digital literacy charity.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, and approved class counsel's fees of 25% of the gross recovery.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that a TTC bus driving over a raised manhole cover at excessive speed constituted a 'collision' with 'any other object' under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misinterpreting legislative intent, misapplying case law, and relying on tort law considerations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact that would have led to a different result, and affirmed that the forceful impact caused by the bus's speed transformed the interaction into a collision.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 for the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area.

Several appeals were withdrawn, and the remaining appellants agreed to scope their appeals to be site-specific and adjourn them sine die.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawals, adjourned the remaining site-specific appeals sine die, released the scheduled 10-day hearing dates, and directed the parties to provide a status update within one year.

The applicant was a passenger on a public transit bus that drove over a raised manhole cover in a construction zone at 57 km/h.

The respondent denied statutory accident benefits, arguing that under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act, no benefits are payable to public transit occupants unless the vehicle collided with another automobile or object.

The Tribunal found that the raised manhole cover constituted 'any other object' and the forceful impact at excessive speed constituted a 'collision.' Therefore, s. 268(1.1) did not preclude the applicant from receiving benefits.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 63-2024, which implements the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan.

The City requested additional time to continue discussions with the appellants to scope issues and explore potential settlements.

The Tribunal directed the City to file a revised draft Procedural Order by December 2024, scheduled a third Case Management Conference for July 2025, and set a 10-day hearing for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 15 appeals from the passing of Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 by the City of Toronto, which implements the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, setting deadlines for their submission.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for September 4, 2024, to allow time for discussions on scoping issues and potential mediation.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to the property owner and a neighbouring developer.

The appellants, who attended with limited-retainer counsel, requested an adjournment to retain specialized municipal counsel and respond to the applicant's motions for summary dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the appellants of proceeding without proper counsel outweighed any prejudice to the applicant, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to hear the motions and finalize the procedural order.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit high-rise mixed-use developments at 399-415 Yonge Street.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement endorsed by City Council.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to give effect to the settlement, finding that the revised proposals, including traffic and servicing improvements, represented good planning.

The applicant 399Y Corporation brought a motion to consolidate its appeals regarding a proposed 75-storey mixed-use building with the appeals of 415 Yonge Holding Ltd. regarding a proposed 42-storey addition, both located within the same block.

The City of Toronto opposed the consolidation, citing prejudice due to the need for Council direction and the lack of a community consultation meeting for the 399Y appeal.

The Tribunal granted the motion to consolidate, finding that dealing with the combined context through a block planning lens would ensure the efficient and effective use of the Tribunal's time and that of the parties, and maintained the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicants claimed statutory accident benefits following a reported hit-and-run motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicants were not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule and putting them to strict proof that the collision occurred as reported.

Following a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found the applicants' evidence credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, while finding the insurer's accident reconstruction evidence unpersuasive.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicants were involved in an accidental collision and were therefore involved in an 'accident' under subsection 2(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but lost contact with her counsel, who was subsequently removed from the record.

After failing to respond to multiple communications and failing to attend the preliminary hearing, the insurer moved to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration without a hearing under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding the proceeding to be frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs to the insurer.

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

The insurer terminated housekeeping benefits and provided an Explanation of Benefits.

More than two years later, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred.

The arbitrator found that the Explanation of Benefits complied with the legal requirements and that the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses.