Suzanne Hunt

The Claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act regarding vacant lands known as Alexander Island.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day Merit Hearing to commence in August 2025.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging that a municipal by-law restricted access to its lands.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow discussions to continue and directed the respondent to file its reply to the statement of claim.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board affirming a public health order to produce patient contact information following an infection control lapse at a dental clinic.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to exclude the appellant's husband, who acted as her agent, on its own initiative due to his alleged incompetence and prior inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation on the tribunal to inquire into the competence of a chosen agent or to exclude him absent an objection or clear prejudice.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion for directions to compel the Integrity Commissioner to file the entire record of proceedings, including confidential evidence, for her pending judicial review application.

The applicant argued that the Commissioner's report waived the statutory duty of secrecy and that procedural fairness required full disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the Commissioner's statutory duty to preserve secrecy under s. 223.5 of the Municipal Act prevails and is not overridden by the general principles of open court proceedings or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The plaintiff, a land developer, sued the City of Belleville for breach of a 1999 Development Agreement and unjust enrichment.

The agreement stipulated that owners of "benefiting properties" would share the cost of sewer and water infrastructure constructed by the plaintiff.

The dispute arose when the City installed its own sewer and water lines on Cloverleaf Drive, connecting to the plaintiff's infrastructure, but did not require homeowners connecting to these services to enter into cost-sharing agreements with the plaintiff.

The court interpreted clause 22 of the Development Agreement, considering the factual matrix and the Public Utilities Act, concluding that the clause applied only to land developers of undeveloped adjoining properties, not individual homeowners.

The action was dismissed.

The parties settled the issue of costs following a previous endorsement.

The respondent municipality was ordered to pay the applicant fixed costs in the amount of $20,313.73.

The applicant, who held a registered easement over a property used as a common area by cottagers, sought a declaration to void a municipal tax sale of the property.

The City had proceeded with the sale after the registered owners failed to pay taxes for years.

The applicant argued the City's treasurer failed to exercise his discretion to stop the sale, which would prejudice the cottagers' use of the land.

The court found the treasurer failed to exercise his broad discretion to ensure fairness, rendering the process unreasonable.

The tax sale was declared void, but the court declined to order the City to provide notice of future tax sales to easement holders, as the Municipal Act does not require it.

The respondents brought a motion to strike the applicants' application.

The court did not strike the application but granted the applicants leave to convert it to an action.

The parties subsequently made written submissions on the costs of the motion.

The applicants argued they should not be subject to costs as they were public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicants were pursuing a personal pecuniary interest related to their commercial property.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, fixing the amounts at $15,000 plus disbursements for the federal respondents, and $2,500 each for the two municipal respondents.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants' initial application was converted to an action, which they subsequently did not pursue.

The respondents sought costs for the motion.

The court determined that the applicants were not public interest litigants, as their claims were personal and pecuniary.

Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay partial costs to the various respondents, reflecting the respondents' ultimate success in concluding the litigation, albeit not on the exact grounds initially pleaded.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or being untimely.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The action, related to a 2006 property purchase, was dismissed in 2011 after the appellants failed to meet a court-ordered timetable.

The motion judge found that a 14-month unexplained delay in bringing a second motion to set aside the dismissal was fatal, and that the defendants suffered actual prejudice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Reid factors and balancing of competing principles.

The applicant filed multiple applications alleging discrimination in services and housing on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, creed, receipt of public assistance, record of offences, and reprisal.

The allegations stemmed from disputes with neighbours over property use, alleged police inaction, and municipal by-law enforcement.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their action, which arose from a real estate transaction.

The action was dismissed by the Registrar after the plaintiffs failed to set the matter down for trial in accordance with a court-ordered timetable.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal and found that the plaintiffs' delay was intentional, as they had prioritized an alternative resolution through the Ministry of the Environment over the litigation.

Given the significant delay in bringing the motion and the prejudice to the defendants, the court refused to set aside the dismissal.

The applicant filed a breach of settlement application alleging the respondent failed to provide budget committee materials free of charge, as allegedly required by their previous settlement regarding accommodation for his visual disability.

The Tribunal found that the budget committee was not among the committees specifically listed in the Minutes of Settlement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal interpreted the settlement's reference to changing 'requirements for accommodation' as applying to the applicant's disability-related needs (such as font size), not to a desire for additional free materials.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's approval of a settlement entered into by the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian, as well as the approval of legal fees.

The Court of Appeal found ample basis on the record to support the motion judge's conclusions and noted there was no admissible medical evidence to support an order to continue the proceeding without the litigation guardian.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents to the appeal brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a May 2, 2012 order for delay and lack of merit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, noting that the appeal was perfected prior to being dismissed for delay, and that motions to dismiss for lack of merit are generally dealt with at the hearing of the appeal.

The court also noted the appellant may have had an unconsidered motion to vary the order for appointment of a litigation guardian.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the appellant.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and reprisal should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discriminatory comments and conduct based on her gender and status as a new resident, both in her employment and as a citizen participating in public council meetings.

The Tribunal concluded that the application should move forward to a full hearing, as it could not determine at this stage that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal on the basis that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The motion judge had ordered the self-represented plaintiff to appoint a litigation guardian and counsel, failing which the defendants could move ex parte to strike her pleadings.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was procedural and did not finally resolve the substantive issues in the litigation.

The motion to quash was granted, as the order was interlocutory, without prejudice to the appellant's ability to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.