Adam Kosnick

The applicant appealed the City of Oshawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for 42 townhouse units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's failure to make a decision on its zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframes.

The applications proposed the development of 42 townhouse units.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Durham and participant status to two individuals.

The parties advised that a settlement was likely and requested a two-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a video hearing for July 4-5, 2023, to either consider the settlement or proceed on the merits.

The applicant appealed the City of Oshawa's failure to make a decision on a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 165-unit single-detached residential development.

The central issue was whether a proposed park block could simultaneously satisfy the statutory parkland dedication requirement and serve as Significant Wildlife Habitat for migrating Monarch butterflies.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the park block could appropriately integrate both active recreational uses and butterfly habitat.

The Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment without a Holding symbol and approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to amended conditions, concluding the proposal was consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by SO Development Inc. for a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision due to the City of Oshawa's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order on consent and scheduled a 19-day Phase 2 video hearing to commence on August 29, 2022.

The City of Oshawa issued a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) a property owned by Scouts Canada under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector agreed the property had cultural heritage value but objected to the wording of the NOID and the municipality's process.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the objection for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that its jurisdiction under the former Act is limited to determining whether a property has cultural heritage value or interest, and it has no authority to judicially review a municipality's decision-making process or the drafting of a NOID.

The appellants requested costs against the City of Oshawa regarding an appeal of an interim control by-law.

The appellants alleged the City acted improperly and in bad faith by passing the by-law to delay a land-use planning study and by failing to repeal it promptly.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award costs for conduct prior to the filing of the appeal, and that the City's conduct after the appeal was filed was reasonable and timely.

The City of Oshawa indicated its intention to bring a motion to dismiss an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property known as Camp Samac for want of jurisdiction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order establishing a schedule for the motion to be heard in writing.

The Tribunal directed that submissions be restricted solely to the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the matter under the former Ontario Heritage Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision due to the municipality's failure to make a decision.

The parties requested a second CMC to review technical reports and finalize the issues list.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and a 10-day Phase 2 hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The Phase 1 hearing focused on whether the proposed development was premature due to the presence of Significant Wildlife Habitat for Monarch butterflies on the subject lands.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not premature, accepting the applicant's evidence that proposed mitigation measures, including species-specific vegetation and a phased construction plan, would ensure no negative impacts on the migratory stopover habitat.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to a Phase 2 hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $25,000.

Unmarried parents dispute custody and access of their child.

The father seeks joint custody with equal week-about sharing of care and control.

The mother seeks sole custody with biweekly access to the father.

The court finds that the father's history of emotional abuse, controlling behaviour, sexual assault, and inability to communicate effectively with the mother render him unsuitable for joint custody.

The mother is found to be the child's primary caregiver throughout the child's life and better positioned to serve the child's best interests.

The court awards sole custody to the mother with biweekly access to the father.

A dispute arose regarding the passing of accounts of a trustee who had acted under a power of attorney for property.

Siblings of the trustee objected to certain expenditures contained in the accounts for a defined period.

The court determined that the evidentiary record was not sufficiently organized for adjudication and directed the objectors to prepare a detailed document identifying each contested expenditure, the trustee’s explanation, and any accountant’s treatment of the item.

The court ordered the document to be served on the trustee for further comment and directed the parties to obtain a judicial resolution date thereafter.