Victor L. Vandergust

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 23, 2025.

The amendment revised paragraph 6 to update the deadlines for certain appellants to submit revisions to their issues lists on consent.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

The appellants appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the applicants to develop three small cabins for short-term accommodation on their farm property.

The appellants argued the proposal was not a valid On-Farm Diversified Use (OFDU) and did not comply with Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were engaged in a genuine farming operation and that the proposed agri-tourism use met the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans.

The Tribunal also determined that MDS I setbacks were not required because the municipality's zoning by-law did not specifically mandate them for this type of use.

The appeal was allowed in part only to make technical refinements to the zoning by-law, but otherwise dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality of Grey Highlands' approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendment would permit three cabins for short-term accommodation on agricultural lands.

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

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and failure to approve a site plan to permit an electrical contractor's yard on a rural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and traffic evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the County and Town Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law and site plan agreement.

The applicants, former directors of PACE Savings & Credit Union, sought a declaration that CUMIS General Insurance Company had a duty to defend them in an action brought by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) as administrator of PACE.

CUMIS denied coverage based on the 'Insured vs. Insured' exclusion in the Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy.

The court held that while the exclusion applied, the 'derivative action' exception restored coverage because the FSRA, acting as a 'person', brought the claim on behalf of the corporation.

The court also ruled that applicants facing fraud claims were entitled to independent counsel due to a conflict of interest, while those facing only negligence claims were not.

A non-party mortgagee brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and a consent judgment from the title of a property it had sold under power of sale.

The plaintiffs, who were creditors of the mortgagor, opposed the motion, arguing the sale was improvident.

The court granted the motion, holding that the mortgagor's equity of redemption was extinguished upon the completion of the power of sale.

As the plaintiffs had no greater interest in the land than the mortgagor, and an action for improvident sale sounds in damages rather than an interest in land, the CPL and judgment could not be maintained on title.

The defendant, Harbouredge Mortgage Investment Corporation, brought motions for security for costs, transfer of action, and a stay of action.

The plaintiff, Morgis Properties Limited, had previously obtained an ex parte certificate of pending litigation (CPL), which was later discharged.

The court granted the defendant's motion for security for costs, ordering the plaintiff to pay $30,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis, finding the plaintiff had insufficient assets and its president had the financial ability to pay.

The defendant's motion to transfer the action was dismissed without prejudice due to procedural non-compliance, and the motion for a stay of action was dismissed as Rule 56.05 already addresses the inability to take steps without providing security.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs for the CPL motion and partial indemnity costs for the security for costs motion, totaling $18,200, due to the plaintiff's improper conduct and lack of a reasonable claim.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following earlier proceedings between a farming corporation and a contractor.

The defendant had previously made a timely offer to settle that was more favourable to the plaintiff than the ultimate decision, which weighed strongly in favour of a costs award to the defendant.

The court also recognized that the defendant achieved substantial success in reducing the applicable interest rate from 24% to 5%.

However, prejudice suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s conduct prior to initiating the application justified a partial reduction of the defendant’s claimed costs.

The court therefore reduced the defendant’s claimed costs and ordered payment of the adjusted amount.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a 2005 default judgment, but ultimately limited the relief sought to varying the contractual interest rate imposed by the judgment.

The court applied the three‑part test governing motions to set aside default judgments, including delay, explanation for the default, and the existence of an arguable defence.

While the defendant failed to adequately explain the delay and prejudice existed due to the passage of time, the court found an arguable defence regarding the 24% contractual interest rate claimed by the plaintiff.

Evidence showed the parties had a longstanding neighbourly farming relationship in which interest had never historically been charged and there was no clear agreement to pay interest at that rate.

The court concluded that the defendant had not agreed to the contractual interest and varied the judgment to apply interest at 5% per year instead.

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's vehicle was involved in a collision and towed to the respondent's facility at the appellant's request.

The respondent paid the towing company and charged the appellant for towing and storage.

The appellant refused to pay, arguing the fees were excessive and violated the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The Small Claims Court awarded the respondent $1,298.50 based on quantum meruit.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that the Consumer Protection Act did not apply because the respondent was not a 'repairer' and the services arose from an emergency.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the fees were reasonable and an agency relationship existed.