Analee Baroudi

The applicant appealed the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a temporary residential use in a Corridor Commercial zone.

Following the first Case Management Conference, the applicant contacted the Tribunal and withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seniors' residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented revised planning instruments.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development satisfies all legislative tests, is consistent with provincial policy, and demonstrates due consideration for the heritage character of the surrounding area.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised amendments.

The applicants sought consent to sever and merge properties, along with an unopened municipal road allowance, to create three non-farm residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The County approved the applications despite staff recommending denial.

The appellant appealed the approval to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed creation of non-farm residential lots in an agricultural area conflicted with the Provincial Policy Statement and the applicable Official Plans, which protect agricultural lands.

The Tribunal refused to authorize the provisional consent.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted an increase in maximum building height from 12.0 m to 15.5 m for a four-storey apartment building.

The appellant argued the height increase was incompatible with the surrounding single-family dwellings and not respectful of the 'small town character' of Lucan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's planner, finding that the revised proposal, which included increased setbacks and buffering, appropriately mitigated potential impacts.

The Tribunal concluded the development was compatible with existing development, respectful of the small-town character, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part only to implement the revised by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness against a zoning by-law amendment granted by the City of London for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four entities on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 9-day hearing to commence on March 1, 2022.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing six minor variances to permit a rear addition and two-car garage on a residential property in London.

The appellant argued the variances for rear yard setback, lot coverage, and building depth were not minor and would cause a loss of privacy and usable amenity space.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the uniquely small lot justified the variances and that the integrated addition was in keeping with the neighbourhood character and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The applicants' application regarding a fence dispute was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs on a full indemnity basis of approximately $41,000, arguing the litigation was trivial and driven by the applicants' self-centered obsessiveness.

The applicants sought their own costs of approximately $19,000, arguing they achieved partial success because the respondents removed an encroaching fence after the application was commenced.

The court agreed the litigation was largely unnecessary but acknowledged the applicants' limited success regarding the removed fence.

The court ordered the applicants to pay the respondents $25,000 in costs inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought an order compelling the respondents to reduce the height of a fence to comply with a municipal by-law, after the municipality declined to enforce it.

The court considered whether it could intervene in a municipality's discretionary decision not to enforce a by-law.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the court found that it could only intervene if the municipality acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

As no such evidence was adduced, and the municipality provided articulable reasons for its decision, the application was dismissed.

The applicants brought an application under section 83 of the Municipal Elections Act to declare the 2018 municipal election in Lambton Shores invalid.

The applicants alleged nine distinct irregularities, primarily focusing on the municipality's exclusive use of internet and telephone voting, the removal of names from the voters' list, and privacy concerns.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no evidence of any irregularities that led to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters or the enfranchisement of ineligible voters.

The court concluded that the municipality complied with the Act and that the applicants' complaints stemmed from a personal distrust of electronic voting rather than actionable statutory breaches.