William Friedman

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 33-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing for February 2025 and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal by 2541005 Ontario Limited against the Township of Oro-Medonte's Zoning By-law No. 2020-046, which restricts the growing of cannabis and industrial hemp crops in agricultural zones.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting the schedule and rules for an 8-day video hearing commencing on July 15, 2024.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 33-storey mixed-use development, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to neighbouring property owners.

As the City had not yet received instructions from City Council and the issues and witnesses were not finalized, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 48-storey mixed-use building.

The appellant argued that the by-law failed to establish appropriate setbacks from the adjacent highway corridor.

The Tribunal found that the required setbacks were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation, and the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow the appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 16-storey proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of technical conditions.

The Tribunal considered a motion to settle a site-specific appeal of a municipal-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis production and processing facilities.

The Tribunal found that it could approve the site-specific settlement prior to hearing the remaining municipal-wide appeal because the settlement instrument could stand alone and would not pre-determine the outcome of the broader appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable official plans by balancing agricultural promotion with the protection of sensitive land uses.

The settlement was approved and the remaining municipal-wide appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the construction of a two-storey boathouse and associated dock on Lake Muskoka.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment, which included reduced lot frontage and increased width permissions, was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

Carmel Pharms brought a motion to separate its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment from a consolidated hearing with two other appellants, following a settlement with the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Tribunal initially denied the motion due to concerns about fair adjudication for the remaining appellants.

After the parties collaborated to revise the draft order, the Tribunal rescinded its initial decision, granted the motion to separate the appeal, and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for Carmel Pharms based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's passage of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-046, which sought to regulate cannabis production and processing facilities by restricting them to industrial zones and imposing a 150-metre setback from sensitive land uses.

The appellants argued that the by-law effectively prohibited the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and industrial hemp in prime agricultural areas, contrary to provincial policies.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, as it failed to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use and restricted normal farm practices.

The Tribunal also found that the by-law did not conform to the Growth Plan or the applicable Official Plans.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the municipality to repeal the by-law.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and a site plan application, to permit a 25-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to two neighbouring property owners and participant status to five individuals.

A procedural order was approved and a 10-day hearing was scheduled to commence on June 12, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 7080 Yonge Limited against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use high-rise development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and party status to nine entities on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order, Issues List, and set a hearing date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple cannabis operators against the Town of Pelham's Official Plan Amendment No. 09 and Zoning By-law No. 4252 (2020).

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions but requested the scheduling of a merits hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing to commence on January 24, 2022, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a seventh Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The parties advised they were continuing discussions, exchanging reports, and intended to seek Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal declined to schedule another CMC or hearing date at this time, directing the parties to provide a written progress report or a draft Procedural Order by December 3, 2021.

The Township of Oro-Medonte brought a motion seeking directions in an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating cannabis production facilities.

The Township sought to exclude an issue regarding whether the by-law restricted normal farm practices, arguing the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Township also sought to bifurcate the appeals and consolidate one appellant's appeal with a separate Development Charges Act appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider whether the by-law restricted normal farm practices as part of its planning analysis, though it could not issue a formal declaration of contravention under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests to bifurcate the appeals and to consolidate the development charges appeal, finding that consolidation of the zoning appeals was more efficient and the development charges appeal involved distinct issues.

The claimant brought a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

At the sixth Case Management Conference, the respondent requested a three-month adjournment to retain an outside planner and respond to the claimant's expert reports, which contained unexpected allegations and a higher injurious affection claim.

The claimant requested that any further hearing be peremptory.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a seventh, peremptory Case Management Conference.

The appellants, the Attorney General of Canada and the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondents' claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and civil conspiracy were not statute-barred.

The core issue was the application of the "appropriate means" element of the discoverability test under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that it was premature for the respondents to commence their actions until related civil forfeiture proceedings and an appeal of a costs order (which addressed Crown misconduct) were concluded.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the limitation period had not expired.

The appellant lawyer appealed decisions of the Law Society Appeal Division that affirmed findings of professional misconduct, including knowing participation in real estate fraud, and the penalty of license revocation.

The appellant also appealed the dismissal of a motion seeking the recusal of two Appeal Division panelists based on their involvement in a prior costs appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings, no error in principle regarding penalty or costs, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

This appeal arose from a long-standing, high-conflict family law dispute.

The appellants challenged a motion judge's order that clarified spousal support obligations, addressed the impact of bankruptcy on an equalization payment secured by a letter of credit, and apportioned trial costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's clarifications that periodic support continued due to the husband's failure to exercise a lump sum option, that the letter of credit securing equalization and support created an equitable trust not extinguished by bankruptcy, and that the allocation of trial costs was appropriate.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and civil conspiracy were statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had successfully defended against both criminal and civil forfeiture applications brought by the state.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motions, finding that while the plaintiffs knew they had suffered damage when the criminal forfeiture application was dismissed, it was not legally appropriate for them to commence an action until the related civil forfeiture application and the appeal of the costs decision were finally resolved.

Therefore, the claims were brought within the two-year limitation period.

The respondent, Zhong Wei, sought costs against the applicant, Jonathan Beatty, and his counsel, John Lo Faso, on a joint and several basis, for a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals.

The Master found that counsel's conduct during cross-examination was improper and caused unnecessary costs and delay.

The Master exercised discretion under Rule 57.07(1)(c) to order counsel to personally pay a portion of Wei's costs, deferring the quantum determination pending the filing of settlement offers.