Amy Dale

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment refusal.

The appellants did not appear.

The Municipality indicated its intention to bring a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the Municipality to file its motion to dismiss in writing pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure and recommended personal service on the appellants.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit agricultural uses on residential lands.

The self-represented appellant had not participated in creating the updated Procedural Order due to technical difficulties.

The Tribunal reviewed the appellant's proposed issues, finding most were not appropriate planning issues, and explained the legal test.

The parties agreed to the Municipality's updated Procedural Order and expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation.

A further CMC was scheduled to pursue mediation or set hearing dates.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 59 adopted by the County of Middlesex.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order submitted on consent by the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing for phase one issues and a 5-day hearing for phase two issues, and directed the parties to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit agricultural uses on the subject lands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals, directed the parties to finalize an Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment #59.

The Tribunal granted party status to Comgord Limited on consent.

The parties requested more time to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the merit hearing until the procedural documents are approved and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for June 6, 2024.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment 59.

The Tribunal granted party status to several non-appellant property owners who demonstrated genuine land use planning concerns.

The parties were directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the second Case Management Conference, which was scheduled for May 8, 2024.

Following a decision determining that a foster child was not entitled to share in an intestate estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant estate trustee was awarded full indemnity costs payable from the estate, as the application was necessary for the proper administration of the estate.

The successful respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs payable by the unsuccessful respondent, with the balance of his full indemnity costs payable by the estate, as the litigation between the respondents was adversarial and did not engage public policy considerations.

The applicant appealed the City of St. Thomas's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of six townhouse units on a property currently containing a single detached dwelling.

A neighboring resident opposed the appeal, raising concerns about traffic, scale, and neighborhood compatibility.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed medium-density development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the development represents appropriate infill that is compatible with the surrounding area and directed the City to amend the zoning by-law subject to conditions regarding landscaping and buffering.

The applicant trustee sought directions on the distribution of an intestate estate.

The deceased died without a spouse, issue, or parents, leaving his estate to be distributed among his siblings.

The respondent, a former foster child of the deceased's adoptive parents, claimed entitlement to share in the estate as a 'sister'.

The court held that under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Succession Law Reform Act, a foster child who was never legally adopted does not meet the definition of a 'child' or 'sister' for the purposes of intestate succession.

The foster child was therefore excluded from sharing in the estate.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and non-decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-unit townhouse condominium development.

The main issue was whether the proposed increase in density from 35 to 48 units per hectare would cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle subject to finalization.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 13-unit condominium townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, which were subsequently submitted and approved.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for September 2023.

The plaintiff, Windsor Salt Ltd., sought an urgent interim injunction against Unifor, its Locals 1959 and 240, James Gatto, and other unidentified picketers, to restrain unlawful picketing activities during a labour dispute.

The court granted the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had satisfied the preconditions under section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, including demonstrating a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court addressed jurisdictional arguments regarding naming unions as parties and the requirement for oral evidence and police assistance efforts, tailoring the injunction to permit lawful picketing while restraining unlawful obstruction, intimidation, and trespass.

At a second Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a six-unit townhouse development, the Ontario Land Tribunal finalized the Issues List and scheduled a three-day hearing.

The parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the city's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a 6-unit townhouse development.

A third party appealed the approval of a related consent application.

At the case management conference, the tribunal considered the impact of the newly enacted More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23).

The tribunal found that the third-party appellant did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the new legislation and the appeal was not scheduled prior to the transition date.

Consequently, the third-party consent appeal was dismissed.

The zoning by-law amendment appeal was adjourned to a second case management conference to allow the city council to reconsider the matter in light of Bill 23.

The applicant greenhouse operator challenged a municipal by-law restricting artificial lighting as interfering with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot and refusing to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant greenhouse operator brought an application alleging that a municipal by-law restricting greenhouse lighting interfered with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the respondent municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion under section 8(1) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot, and refused to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the employer's use of key performance indicators (KPIs) to determine eligibility for a telework program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The arbitrator had found that Letter of Understanding No. 11 (LOU 11) of the collective agreement, which governed monitoring and measurement, did not apply.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable, as it failed to account for the plain wording of LOU 11 and the fact that KPIs are a form of measurement.

The award was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of a zoning by-law amendment that rezoned four severed parcels from General Agricultural to Rural Residential.

The appellant argued the rezoning would impact drainage and that the relocation of a municipal drain was unnecessary.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit an updated Procedural Order and Issues List, offered Tribunal-led mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial property to operate a hair salon.

She sued her real estate agent and his brokerage for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the agent falsely guaranteed that four specific parking spaces on an adjacent lot were included in the purchase.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and accepting the agent's evidence that he only provided an equivocal response and promised to follow up with the listing agent.

The court found the agent did not make the alleged unequivocal statements of fact.

The action was dismissed, with damages provisionally assessed at $7,696 for the value of the parking spaces had liability been found.