Bruce Krushelnicki

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Board directed the parties to prepare an Agreed Statement of Facts and set the dates and procedural requirements for the upcoming hearing.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order to change the hearing date for an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 221 Mary Street under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The order sets new dates for the hearing and establishes deadlines for document exchange and witness lists.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection by the property owners to the Township's Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 221 Mary Street.

The order sets the hearing dates, identifies the parties and their counsel, and outlines the requirements for document exchange and expert witness evidence.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following Peel's successful motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash.

Peel argued the Director engaged in unreasonable conduct by issuing the order and opposing the revocation motion.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the Director's conduct in the course of the appeal was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicants to demolish an existing garage and construct a 1.5-storey detached garage with a storage loft.

The appellants argued the new garage would negatively impact their view and conflict with the Escarpment Rural Area objectives.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development was a permitted use, met the development criteria, and would not have a substantial negative impact on the visual attractiveness of the area, as visual impact is assessed from the public viewshed rather than private properties.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing garage and construct a new detached garage with a storage loft.

During a pre-hearing conference, a neighbour requested presenter status to raise concerns about visual impacts, and the applicants requested a site visit.

The Hearing Panel granted both requests on consent and issued procedural directions for the hearing.