Andrea M. Mannell

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a public inspection centre as a home industry on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement to allow the variance subject to conditions limiting the use to the inspection of fire trucks and prohibiting repairs.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The respondent, having been successful in the main application for judicial review, sought partial indemnity costs of $45,000.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest exception, or alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest argument, noting the applicant had a personal financial motivation for the proceeding.

However, the court agreed the claimed amount was excessive for a half-day hearing on a narrow issue, and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed the City of Niagara Falls Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny consent and minor variance applications for a property on Bond Street.

The appellant sought to sever the lot to create a new parcel for future residential use, requiring relief for minimum lot area and frontage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved their issues.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial and municipal policies, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed, variances authorized, and provisional consent granted subject to conditions.

The claimants brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following the expropriation of their property by the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

A ten-day video hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2026.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

The applicant appealed the Town's non-decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a three-storey, 17-unit residential apartment building.

The Town opposed the applications primarily on compatibility grounds, arguing the development did not fit the surrounding low-density neighbourhood.

The Tribunal applied a balancing approach, weighing policies that encourage an adequate supply, mix, and range of housing options against compatibility concerns.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's planners, the Tribunal found the proposed development to be adequately compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed, subject to a holding provision for stormwater management.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a municipal council decision reprimanding him and suspending his pay for 30 days due to his participation in the Freedom Convoy protest.

The applicant argued the council failed to consider his section 2 Charter rights when imposing the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the council was bound by the Integrity Commissioner's finding of misconduct, and any Charter arguments were relevant only to the Commissioner's finding, not the council's subsequent discretionary penalty decision.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (PALS) requested party status in the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal.

The applicant objected, arguing PALS did not make submissions during the municipal process and lacked a direct interest.

The Tribunal granted PALS party status, finding they had sufficient grounds as an appellant in the related Official Plan Amendment appeal.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize the draft procedural order and issues lists, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by BayCity Custom Homes against the Township of Ramara's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications.

The applications seek to permit two new residential lots via severances and a reduction in minimum lot frontage.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing to commence by video on July 9, 2024.

This was a concurrent Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment for the expansion of a place of worship in the Greenbelt Plan Area.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, as they involve the same applicant, subject property, and proposed development.

The Tribunal also directed the removal of Natural Heritage matters from the Issues List because the appellants did not intend to call expert witnesses to address them.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment to permit the expansion of a Place of Worship in the Greenbelt Plan Area.

The Tribunal granted Party Status to the applicant but denied a Party Status request from a local resident who sought to act as a negotiator rather than raise planning concerns.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to consolidate these appeals with a related Zoning By-law Amendment appeal, scheduling a combined Case Management Conference to address procedural matters.

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant and sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendant argued that the parties should bear their own costs due to the plaintiff's conduct, or alternatively, that costs should be reduced.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's conduct and the use of Toronto counsel, but also declined to award substantial indemnity costs or penalize the defendant for refusing to mediate.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $39,325.00, after making a reduction for overlapping time among the plaintiff's legal team.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of two consent applications to create two new residential lots from an existing property in the Village of Queenston.

The Tribunal heard evidence from multiple experts on land use planning, cultural heritage, transportation, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed lots represent appropriate modest infill that conforms to the Town's Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted evidence that the development would not negatively impact adjacent cultural heritage resources.

While acknowledging concerns about sight lines for the middle lot's driveway due to the road's steep grade, the Tribunal found this could be addressed through the required municipal entrance permit process.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions.

The plaintiff, a slip priority note holder, sued the defendant sailing club for breach of contract after the club unilaterally changed its summer dockage rates, eliminating a long-standing 20% rate differential for slip priority holders.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no such agreement existed or was breached.

The court found a valid contract based on objective intent and conduct, including 40 years of consistent application of the 20% differential.

The court determined the club breached this agreement by unilaterally altering its terms and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages and specific performance of the original rate differential.

The applicant, a municipal councilor, sought to add the Integrity Commissioner as a respondent to his application for judicial review of a decision imposing penalties for his participation in the Freedom Convoy.

The motion was brought months after the 30-day limitation period under the Judicial Review Procedures Act had expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate apparent grounds for relief, as the Commissioner's findings regarding the unlawfulness of the demonstration and the applicant's breaches of the Code of Conduct were reasonable.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal concerning a consent application to create two new lots for residential development in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The applicant brought an application to quash a resolution and by-law passed by the respondent municipality to conditionally appoint a member to fill a potential council vacancy.

The vacancy was anticipated because a sitting councillor was running in a provincial election.

The court found that the Municipal Act requires a vacancy to actually exist and be declared before an appointment can be made.

The resolution and by-law were quashed for illegality as they were passed without jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development.

During the hearing, the Tribunal made several procedural rulings, notably excluding the appellant's ecological expert witness from giving opinion evidence because her self-described role as an advocate demonstrated an inability to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan testimony.

The Tribunal also struck hearsay reports from a non-testifying expert and excluded late-filed documents.

Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement modifying the development proposal to increase environmental protection areas and adjust the residential mix.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The defendant moved for the release of proceeds held in trust from the sale of her home.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on an ex parte motion, claiming an interest in the property based on an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The property was subsequently sold by a mortgage lender after the defendant defaulted, and the net proceeds were held in trust.

The court found that the CPL should have been discharged due to the plaintiffs' failure to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion and because equitable factors favoured discharge.

The court also declined to order the funds held as security under Rule 45.02, noting the plaintiffs' claim was ultimately for damages.

The motion was granted and the funds were ordered released to the defendant.

The applicants appealed the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision within the legislated timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal noted there were no requests for party or participant status.

The parties agreed that mediation was not appropriate and requested a hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a finalized draft procedural order and consolidated issues list.