Thomas E. Sanderson

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit an autobody repair establishment.

The parties presented a finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Leverton Developments Inc. against the Township of Malahide's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a two-and-a-half storey, six-unit apartment building.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent and scheduled a two-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc. for a proposed plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment in the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence by video on July 24, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Eden Oak (Raglan) Inc. for a proposed residential subdivision in the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal granted participant status to seven individuals on consent of the parties.

A one-day video hearing was scheduled for February 21, 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a sand and gravel extraction operation.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Friends of Ball’s Bridge and Little Lakes and participant status to two individuals.

A 10-day merits hearing was scheduled for September 2023, and the Procedural Order was approved.

The applicant appealed the County's refusal to process a Site Plan Approval application for a proposed townhouse development.

The County had deemed the application premature due to insufficient municipal drinking water capacity.

Prior to the scheduled three-day hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal of promising settlement discussions.

The Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference, released the remaining hearing days, and scheduled a one-day hearing to address any remaining issues or approve a settlement.

The applicants appealed the denial of a minor variance application by the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment regarding fence height.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to allow the existing stone pillar and gate to remain at 2.13 metres and reduce the proposed front yard picket fence to 1.22 metres.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests for a minor variance and approved the settlement.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.

Following a judgment on the merits, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' and a non-party's vexatious conduct.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity costs were warranted, but reduced the requested amount by $15,000 to sanction the defendant's own witness for frustrating an examination.

Costs were fixed at $39,803.89, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs and the non-party.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for specific performance due to egregious litigation misconduct, the defendant brought a motion seeking forfeiture of a $200,000 deposit and an order making the non-party principal of one of the plaintiffs personally liable for costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' destruction and concealment of evidence made it impossible to determine who was at fault for the failed real estate transaction, warranting an adverse inference that the plaintiffs were not ready, willing, and able to close.

The court ordered the deposit forfeited to the defendant and held the non-party principal jointly and severally liable for costs due to his abusive litigation conduct, including the concealment of a related lawsuit between the plaintiffs.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

This addendum to the Reasons for Judgment corrects calculation errors identified by counsel for both parties.

The court revised six specific unit price items and an omitted item, leading to an increase in the total amount awarded to the plaintiff.

The final revised judgment requires the defendant to pay an increased sum plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant municipality for unpaid amounts under a unit-price contract for road reconstruction.

The claims included unpaid quantities of unit-price line items, unpaid claims for changes or extra work asserted during the project, and claims for changes and extras discovered during litigation.

The court first determined that the claims discovered during litigation were barred due to failure to provide timely notice, but the municipality had waived strict compliance with notice provisions for claims asserted during the project.

The court then analyzed each of the 36 individual claims, weighing the evidence of the parties' respective witnesses and records.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff $547,261.75 plus pre-judgment interest.