Warren Morris

The applicant appealed the Town of Innisfil's passing of a by-law to designate the property at 6225 Yonge Street as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement, which was approved by Town Council.

Based on the settlement and the uncontradicted expert evidence provided by affidavit, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and amended the designation by-law in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.

The City of Burlington passed by-laws designating two properties on Brant Street as having cultural heritage value.

The appellants separately appealed the designations.

At a Case Management Conference, the City requested that the two appeals be heard together because they relied on the same consultant report.

The appellants consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure and scheduled a two-day hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a heritage designation by-law, the municipality requested that the matter be heard together with two other appeals concerning similar properties.

The Tribunal denied the request at this time because the other appellants had not yet been consulted.

The Tribunal adjourned the conference to allow the municipality to seek consent from the other appellants and recommended the municipality amend its request for Tribunal-assisted mediation to include this appeal.

The Peel District School Board appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to designate the Lakeview Park School property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the consent of the parties and the expert affidavit evidence of a heritage planner, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered that the Designation By-law be amended with a revised Schedule 'B' detailing the property's cultural heritage value and attributes.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Burlington's Heritage By-law No. 32-2023 for the property at 488 Locust Street.

The self-represented appellants indicated an intention to bring a motion for summary judgment, but the parties agreed to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation first.

The Tribunal directed the parties to apply for mediation and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 4, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing commencing March 5, 2025, in the event mediation is unsuccessful.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's decision to designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a procedural order, set hearing dates for January 2025, and issued the procedural order to govern the future conduct of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to a hearing scheduled for July 8, 2024.

The underlying appeal concerns the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for the renovation of a single-family dwelling under the Conservation Authorities Act.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order related to waste disposal at a salvage yard, the parties sought approval of a draft Procedural Order.

The parties disagreed on the timing of witness statements and the necessity of examinations for discovery.

The Tribunal adjusted the delivery date for witness statements to accommodate potential motions for examinations and approved the revised Procedural Order, scheduling a ten-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed a new Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding waste storage.

The new order was issued to implement a settlement agreement and a prior OLT order that amended a previous Director's Order.

The appellants argued the new order was distinct and subject to fresh appeal rights.

The OLT found that the new order was a continuation of the previous process and substantively the same as the amended order agreed upon by the parties.

The OLT dismissed the appeal without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction and having no reasonable prospect of success, as it cannot hear an appeal of its own consent order.

The appellants appealed the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority's decision to deny a building permit for a renovation project on a rural property.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits to commence on July 8, 2024, and directed the parties to file a draft procedural order and issues list.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a consultant and apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a private sewage works at a motel and trailer park.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested an extension of the Order's timelines, arguing they intended to cease operations and dismantle the septic system by November 2024.

The Director opposed the extension, citing environmental risks.

The Tribunal scheduled a future Case Management Conference and a two-day merit hearing, allowing the parties time to attempt settlement negotiations.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to establish independent access to a residential property.

The appellant, a neighbour, sought to be kept informed of the development process rather than prohibit it.

The Hearing Officer scheduled a two-day hearing and directed the parties to attempt settlement, failing which a Procedural Order must be filed.

The appellant brought a motion to stay the requirements of a Director's Order pending the resolution of its appeal regarding the removal of demolition waste.

At the Case Management Conference, the Director consented to the stay, noting no concerns regarding the prohibitions in section 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent without the need for a motion hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of conditions imposed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on a permission to construct a residential dwelling.

The Tribunal set deadlines for the production of a refined Issues List and a final Procedural Order.

A four-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on March 11, 2024.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for an agricultural building.

At the scheduled Case Management Conference, the appellants failed to appear because they had not received the previous order.

The applicants requested that the appeal be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The Hearing Officer declined to hear an oral motion to dismiss, directing the applicants to file a formal written motion in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and adjourned the matter to a subsequent telephone conference call.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the installation of fibre optic internet cable, citing health and environmental concerns regarding electromagnetic interference.

The appellant failed to appear at the scheduled video hearing.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and Rule 3.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to conditionally approve the development permit was deemed confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approving a development permit for a one-storey agricultural building (a run-in shelter for horses).

At the Case Management Conference, the appellants raised concerns regarding groundwater impacts and odours from manure.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions regarding the number of days horses could be kept on the property and the location of the manure pile.

The Tribunal adjourned the CMC to allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations, directing them to prepare a draft Procedural Order if a settlement could not be reached.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation work at their property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested a further 90-day adjournment to continue productive settlement discussions and expert meetings involving soil sampling and testing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the progress made, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to either set a settlement hearing or finalize a procedural order and issues list for a contested hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding two appeals by ONE Properties Limited Partnership concerning a proposed business park development and wetland relocation in Hamilton.

The Tribunal approved the finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence in October 2023.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation work.

At a status update teleconference, the parties reported significant progress in settlement discussions, including meetings between experts and ongoing soil sampling.

The Tribunal agreed it would be premature to schedule a new hearing and ordered a further Case Management Conference for March 2023 to assess the status of the settlement.