Alana Amelia Ann Vandervoort

The applicants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a 'transportation depot' for a stretch limousine service on a property designated as prime agricultural.

The applicants argued the use was akin to a home occupation and would not negatively impact the area.

The Town maintained that a transportation depot is an industrial/commercial use not permitted in agricultural zones and differs substantially from a home occupation.

The Tribunal agreed with the Town, finding that the variance failed all four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it would effectively rezone the property to general industrial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the Town of Caledon Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to increase the structural envelope on their property to retain an accessory shed and detached garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a revised variance to increase the structural envelope to 0.34 hectares and relocate the garage to the edge of the envelope, subject to mitigation conditions.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variance subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon Committee of Adjustment's decisions regarding conditions of provisional consent and the denial of minor variances.

The applications sought to sever a single property into three residential lots, requiring variances for minimum lot area and frontage.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the consents and variances met all statutory tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable provincial and municipal plans.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents granted subject to agreed conditions, and the minor variances authorized.

The appellant, a company convicted of breaching a municipal zoning bylaw by stacking shipping containers to a height exceeding the maximum permitted height of 5 metres, appealed the conviction and sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The fresh evidence consisted of internet-sourced information regarding standard shipping container sizes.

The court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding that the evidence was available and discoverable at trial, the issue of container height was clearly foreseeable, and the appellant's legal counsel had been aware of and addressed this issue during trial.

The appellant's decision not to call evidence at trial was an informed tactical decision by counsel, and the appellant could not now introduce such evidence on appeal.

The Corporation of the Town of Caledon brought a motion for directions regarding an appeal by Joseph Michael Bozzelli and Amanda Bozzelli under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The motion sought clarification on the proper procedural rule (Rule 61, 38, or 62 of the Rules of Civil Procedure) and whether the appeal would be a de novo hearing allowing viva voce evidence.

The court determined that Rule 62 was the appropriate procedural rule, supplemented by Rule 38 by analogy, and that the appeal would proceed as a hearing de novo.

However, the court ruled that the hearing would be on a paper record, without viva voce evidence, limiting additional evidence to affidavits concerning compliance time for the underlying property standards order.