Alstair Huw Alstyne Burton

This was the first Case Management Conference concerning appeals by The Blue Meadows Inc. against the Town of The Blue Mountains and Grey County for failing to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to three others.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Pleasant Condos GP Inc. against the City of Toronto concerning site plan approval and minor variances to permit an increase in the height of a residential tower from 35 to 40 storeys.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Avoca Vale Residents' Association and party status to 40 Rosehill Avenue (MTCC No. 773) for the minor variance appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 15, 2024, to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved a settlement resolving Phase 2 and Phase 3 of appeals concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 32 (OPA 32) for the Southwest Georgetown Lands in the Town of Halton Hills.

The settlement modifies OPA 32 to establish a secondary plan permitting approximately 9,300 dwelling units, commercial and institutional uses, and a transportation network.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 32 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modifications, and the related private official plan amendment appeals were dismissed.

The respondent delivered a Notice of Arbitration regarding the expropriation of the claimant's property.

At the first Case Management Conference, claimant's counsel advised that the claimant had passed away and requested an extension of time to file a Statement of Claim while a personal representative is appointed.

The parties agreed to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the extension, directed the parties to file a mediation request, and adjourned the Case Management Conference.

The applicant sought costs of $153,858.95 against a residents group following a settlement hearing for a subdivision development.

The applicant argued the residents group acted unreasonably by pursuing meritless planning arguments and failing to call engineering evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the residents group participated reasonably, complied with procedural orders, and advocated in good faith.

The Tribunal emphasized its cautious approach to costs against citizens to avoid a chilling effect on public participation in the planning process.

The applicant appealed the Township of Amaranth's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment and a consent application to sever a residence surplus to a farming operation.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence supporting a revised severance configuration.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, as it preserves prime agricultural lands while permitting the continuation of an existing residence.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle and granting provisional consent subject to conditions.

Mattamy brought a motion to consolidate two competing Official Plan Amendment (OPA) appeals regarding the Southwest Georgetown secondary plan, and to have its site-specific zoning and draft plan appeals heard together with the OPA appeals.

The Town brought a preliminary motion to strike the reply affidavit of Mattamy's planning expert, arguing it contained legal advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike, finding the affidavit relevant but noting it would separate the planning opinion from the advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed Mattamy's motion in its entirety, finding that hearing the site-specific appeals together with the OPA appeals would be premature, potentially prejudicial to the approval authorities, and could inappropriately invert the planning hierarchy.

The Tribunal also found no appreciable benefit to formally consolidating the two OPA appeals.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision, the Tribunal considered amendments to pre-hearing filing dates and a request for an adjournment.

The Town and Region requested a two-month adjournment to facilitate further documentation exchange and mediation.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the hearing had been scheduled for over ten months and the late stage of the request did not justify delaying the 13-day hearing.

The Tribunal issued amended filing dates and hearing organizational directives.

The appellants appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment 44 by the Town of Halton Hills and the Regional Municipality of Halton.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a residents' association and participant status to an individual.

The Tribunal declined a request to consolidate one of the appeals with a site-specific appeal, noting that no formal motion had been brought and that pending legislative changes under Bill 23 could affect the proceedings.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to assess the impact of the new legislation once enacted.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Halton Hills' failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and appeals against the adopted Official Plan Amendment 32.

The Tribunal received a status update on mediation efforts concerning natural heritage issues.

The Tribunal directed revisions to the Issues List proposed by a party, finding some issues were not relevant planning matters.

The Tribunal approved the revised Issues List and issued the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-phase merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. against the Town of Wilmot's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal granted party status to Citizens for Safe Groundwater Inc. and participant status to 37 individuals on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 2023 and a 22-day hearing for October 2023, anticipating administrative consolidation with a related Aggregate Resources Act license referral.

In an expropriation compensation proceeding for business losses arising from LRT construction, the respondent Metrolinx brought a motion for discovery to compel the claimant to produce further financial records and a better affidavit of documents.

The claimant argued the records did not exist because it had amalgamated with a third-party purchaser and its operations were merged.

The Tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments, finding that the financial data must exist in some form and is highly relevant to the business loss claim.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to produce the requested financial materials and awarded costs to Metrolinx on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 20 residential units.

A settlement was reached between the appellant, the Town, the County, and a condominium corporation, but was opposed by a local residents' group.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal rejected a late request by the Town to impose a condition requiring the developer to provide six affordable housing units, finding it unreasonable and inequitable in the absence of supporting Official Plan policies.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The defendant, Co-operators General Insurance Company, brought a motion for partial summary judgment and security for costs.

The plaintiff, 1923731 Ontario Ltd., had a commercial plaza damaged by fire, and the loss amount was determined by an appraisal process under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff subsequently sued for additional damages, including those already appraised, and for bad faith.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for damages already determined by the binding appraisal award, emphasizing that such awards can only be challenged via judicial review.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, finding insufficient assets to cover potential adverse cost awards.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law and an official plan amendment in the Town of Halton Hills.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals and provided directives for the upcoming video hearing, including the removal of oral participant statements from the hearing plan in accordance with the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The appellants appealed the Town of The Blue Mountains' decision to zone a portion of their property as hazard lands.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented a revised Zoning By-law Amendment on consent.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The respondent, Metrolinx, brought a motion for the production of documents in an expropriation claim for business losses arising from the construction of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

Metrolinx sought documents relating to the sale of the claimant's shares and foundational documents relied upon by the claimant's expert.

The Ontario Land Tribunal denied the request for the share sale documents, finding them irrelevant as the claim was restricted to losses at a single retail location and did not include a loss of overall business value.

The Tribunal allowed the motion in part regarding the expert's foundational documents, ordering the production of raw financial data and sales summaries, but excluding privileged communications and publicly available statistics.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a representative of a local residents' association.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and scheduled a pre-hearing status hearing and a four-day video hearing on the merits, noting the potential for a future consolidation with an anticipated appeal of an Official Plan Amendment.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The parties presented a refined Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order, including a contested provision regarding potential costs awards for failing to call evidence on listed issues, and scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant conservation authority sought an interim injunction to stop the respondents from excavating peat and depositing fill on their property, which is located within a provincially significant wetland.

The respondents had been carrying out these activities without the required permits under the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 179/06.

The court found that the respondents were in flagrant breach of the regulation and that their activities were causing irreparable harm to the wetland.

The court granted the interim injunction, prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the wetland without prior written approval.