Shima Heidari

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a status conference regarding multiple expropriation compensation claims against the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal ordered that if the parties cannot resolve disputes over the claimants' proposed amended pleadings, the respondent must file a motion by May 4, 2026.

The parties were also directed to submit a draft procedural order with a proposed 2027 hearing date by May 29, 2026, and a written case management conference was scheduled for June 5, 2026, if requested.

At a Case Management Conference for an expropriation compensation claim, the Tribunal determined that the scheduled 10-day hearing could not proceed due to incomplete discoveries, outstanding undertakings, and the claimants' intention to amend their pleadings.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing, scheduled a further Case Management Conference to set new dates, and ordered the claimants to identify any additional expert witnesses.

The respondent's request for interim costs thrown away was dismissed, with costs reserved to the final hearing.

The parties attended a Telephone Conference Call regarding five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation in London.

The parties requested an update on proposed mediation dates and sought minor amendments to the Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal ordered the revised Procedural Order to be in full force and effect and confirmed that the Case Coordinator would communicate with the Mediation Team regarding the February mediation dates.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicants sought mandamus compelling the SIU Director to lay a murder charge against a subject officer following a fatal police shooting, and also sought a declaration that the decision not to charge was tainted by anti-black racism.

The court held that, under s. 32 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, the Director's determination of whether reasonable grounds exist includes both subjective and objective components and permits consideration of all reliable information, including an obvious self-defence issue.

The Director did not err by considering self defence, and mandamus could not be used to force a particular charging result absent jurisdictional error, bad faith, discrimination, or failure to consider a highly relevant factor.

The court found no evidence that race motivated either the officer's conduct or the Director's decision.

Mandamus was also unavailable because a private prosecution under s. 504 of the Criminal Code provided an adequate alternative remedy.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for an interim stay pending an application for judicial review.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of the motion.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, ordering that the interim interim stay remain in place until the motion is heard, the application is decided, or the parties consent to lift it.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.

The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.

The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.

A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.

The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.

The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.

Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion to be added as a party and appointed as a representative of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in an action commenced by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against Canada and Ontario.

Following case conferences, the parties and HDI consented to a timetable for the motion and terms for providing notice to potentially interested non-parties.

The court issued an order on consent setting out the timetable and the specific notice requirements.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including five physiotherapy treatment plans, a chronic pain assessment, and a functional impairment evaluation.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination reports over the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal approved the first two physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, but denied the remaining plans and assessments due to a lack of objective medical evidence.

The applicant was awarded interest on the approved plans but denied a special award for unreasonable delay.

The plaintiffs commenced an occupiers' liability action after one plaintiff allegedly struck her head on a staircase in the defendants' building.

At a pre-trial conference, the pre-trial judge ordered the appointment of a court expert to report on liability and human factors, despite objections from the defendants and the plaintiffs' objection to paying the costs.

The pre-trial judge provided no reasons for the order.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, holding that the pre-trial judge erred by failing to provide reasons and by issuing an order that required the expert to investigate and weigh evidence, thereby usurping the role of the trier of fact.

The plaintiff alleged injuries from a slip and fall on a sidewalk and commenced an action against the City of Toronto and the registered owner of the adjacent property, Maria Naccarato.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff learned Maria Naccarato had died years prior and her son, Joe Naccarato, was the executor and occupier of the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute Joe Naccarato as a defendant.

The court granted the motion, finding the pleading constituted a misnomer, the intended defendant had timely notice, and there was no non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairment (depression) removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the Tribunal dismissed her claim for an income replacement benefit, finding that her gynecological issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident, and that her musculoskeletal and psychological impairments did not result in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as an Uber Eats driver.

Claims for an attendant care assessment and a special award were also dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of J. Wilson J. dated August 5, 2020.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.