Timothy J. Hill

The parties attended a case management conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act.

On consent, the parties requested an amendment to the previously issued procedural order.

The Tribunal rescinded the prior order and issued a revised procedural order setting out the schedule for documentary discovery, expert reports, and a 40-day hearing commencing in June 2025.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals regarding a flooded access road.

The Township of Georgian Bluffs and the Ministry of Transportation appealed a lower court decision that found the road public, obligated the Township to maintain it, and ordered the Ministry to restore culverts and indemnify the Township.

The Crown's appeal was allowed due to procedural unfairness, as no relief was sought against the Ministry in the original application.

The Township's appeal was dismissed, affirming the public nature of the road based on historical statute labour and common law dedication and acceptance, and upholding its obligation to restore the road.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, a heritage foundation, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that granted zoning and Official Plan amendments to allow the construction of two high-rise buildings in downtown Kingston.

The moving party argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to interpret the Official Plan as a whole and incorrectly interpreting specific compatibility criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of the Official Plan's competing objectives of heritage preservation and urban intensification was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable error of law.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed his appeal of a zoning by-law without a hearing.

The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground and failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policy or the official plan.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons and made no error of law in applying the test for dismissing an appeal without a hearing under the Planning Act.

The moving party had failed to provide responding affidavit evidence or expert planning opinions to support his appeal grounds before the Tribunal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The respondents (Purchaser) brought a motion to stay an application by the applicant (Vendor) for production of documents related to post-closing adjustments in a share purchase agreement.

The core issue was whether a clause in the SPA, which referred unresolved matters to an "Independent Accountant" for a binding determination, constituted an arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act, 1991, or merely an expert determination clause.

Applying the indicia from Sport Maska Inc. v. Zittrer, the court found that the clause was an arbitration agreement because it involved a formulated dispute, required the Independent Accountant to exercise a judicial function based on party submissions, and resulted in a final and binding decision.

Consequently, the court granted the stay of the Production Application, holding that all issues related to the working capital adjustment, including document production, should be determined by the Independent Accountant (arbitrator) in the first instance.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that approved a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 14-storey hotel, which required the demolition of two buildings designated by the City under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The LPAT, acting exclusively under the Planning Act, found the buildings had no cultural heritage value and approved the rezoning conditional on the developer obtaining a demolition permit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LPAT exceeded its jurisdiction by impugning the legality of the City's heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act while purporting to exercise powers exclusively under the Planning Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a preservation order regarding shares in a start-up company, alleging they owned two-thirds of the shares held by the defendant.

The defendant claimed sole ownership and had recently sold a portion of the shares.

The court found the plaintiffs met the test for a preservation order under Rule 45.

However, to mitigate prejudice from fluctuating share prices, the court ordered that the defendant could sell the shares but must pay the proceeds into court.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the appeal and the proceeding below.

The respondent disputed the amount claimed for disbursements, specifically the fees of the appellant's experts.

The Court of Appeal held that expert fees are subject to a reasonableness test and reduced the claimed disbursements, noting the experts were not called to testify and their fees were significantly higher than those of the respondent's experts.

The court awarded the appellant fixed costs for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The City of Ottawa appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for negligent misrepresentation to Charlesfort Developments Limited.

Charlesfort claimed the City failed to accurately inform it about a water main in an easement during a rezoning process, leading to significant project delays and increased costs for a condominium development.

The Court of Appeal allowed the City's appeal, holding that the City did not owe Charlesfort a private law duty of care.

The Court clarified that the City's undertaking in processing a rezoning application was to fulfill its statutory duty in the public interest, not to protect the developer's economic interests or assure project viability.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal by an insurer, Co-operators General Insurance Company, finding it had no duty to defend its insureds, Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCS) and Laridae Communications Inc., against a class action and a third-party claim.

The claims arose from a data breach where a confidential report was hacked from FCS's website and posted online.

The court held that the data exclusion clauses in both the Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Professional Liability policies were unambiguous and clearly excluded coverage for claims arising from the electronic distribution or display of data.

The court rejected arguments that the exclusion clauses nullified the policies or that there were non-electronic claims, emphasizing that the substance of the claims solely related to online data dissemination.

The defendants, comprising law firms and solicitors, brought two summary judgment motions seeking to dismiss professional negligence claims brought against them by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence for failing to advise them of their rescission rights under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the scope of the retainers, the duty of care owed by the defendants, and causation.

The court emphasized the need for a trial to assess witness credibility and the necessity of expert evidence in professional negligence claims, and declined to grant partial summary judgment due to the interconnectedness and complexity of the claims.

The Town of Lincoln sought a declaration that AIG Insurance Company of Canada had a duty to defend it under a public entity general insurance policy.

The Town was a defendant in a negligence action alleging sewage overflow due to a ruptured pipe, disrepair of a storm sewer, and improper land grading.

AIG denied coverage based on a pollution exclusion clause.

The court found that the claim against the Town had two branches: one related to the pumping station and sewage flood (potentially subject to exclusion), and another related to the storm sewers and land grading (not subject to the exclusion).

As the second branch was not derivative and concerned a different wrongdoing, the pollution exclusion did not apply to it.

Therefore, the insurer had a duty to defend.

The applicant residents' associations sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that approved a revised development proposal to demolish three houses and build a low-rise apartment in a Heritage Conservation District.

The applicants argued the tribunal made errors of law by deferring to the City's demolition approval under the Ontario Heritage Act, treating demolition as conservation, and failing to assign a higher heritage rating to one of the houses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the applicants' challenges were directed at findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not subject to appeal.

The plaintiff noted several defendants in default.

The Vaughan Defendants and Antonio Gentile brought motions to set aside the noting in default.

The plaintiff argued that a motion to strike the statement of claim was not a step in defending the action, and that statements of defence were still required.

The court found that serving a notice of motion to strike the claim constitutes a step in the proceeding, making the noting in default irregular.

Additionally, the defendants met the criteria under Rule 19.03 for setting aside default.

The court set aside the noting in default for all defendants and awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,000 to both the Vaughan Defendants and Antonio Gentile, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff developer sued the defendant municipality for negligent misrepresentation regarding a rezoning application for a condominium project.

During the rezoning process, the municipality failed to inform the developer about a large, high-pressure water main located in an adjacent easement, mistakenly advising that it was a trunk sewer.

The developer relied on this information and proceeded with the purchase and development.

At the site plan approval stage, the municipality's engineers objected to the proposed underground parking garage due to the risks posed to the water main, forcing the developer to redesign the project and incur significant delays and costs.

The court found that the municipality owed a duty of care to the developer, breached that duty through negligent misrepresentations, and that the developer reasonably relied on those representations.

The court awarded the developer $4,496,384 in damages and pre-judgment interest.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a municipal bylaw designating their property as a heritage building.

The appellants argued the bylaw was void ab initio due to a defect in the notice of intention to designate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the application, brought under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001, was barred by the one-year limitation period in s. 273(5), as the appellants had actual notice of the designation years before commencing the proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant municipality discovered an 1854 by-law purporting to establish a public road along the shoreline of Georgian Bay.

It registered the by-law in 2007 and sought a declaration that the road was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondents, who own cottage properties on the purported road, successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that summary judgment was appropriate, the 1854 by-law lacked sufficient certainty to establish a road, and the unregistered by-law was void against the respondents who had no actual notice of it.

The appellant franchisee appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent franchisor for breach of the statutory duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The appellant argued that the franchisor failed to provide sufficient disclosure regarding a right of first refusal for a new restaurant location, specifically concerning the final lease terms and the size of the exclusive territory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the franchisor acted in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner, and that the appellant's decision to pass on the location was an informed one based on its own financial position and lack of confidence in the landlord.