Andrew Biggart

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Stafford Homes Ltd. against the Town of Ajax's Development Charges By-law No. 55-2020.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduled an eight-day video hearing for August and September 2022, and scheduled a further pre-hearing status hearing for July 2022.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (King Spadina Secondary Plan).

Four non-appellant property owners requested party status.

The Tribunal found that three owners had a direct interest and added them as parties, contingent on filing a list of issues to shelter under.

A fourth owner, who did not make submissions prior to the OPA's adoption, was also added as a party because they owned lands within the OPA area and were directly affected.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 59-storey residential tower.

Following a prior Tribunal decision approving the development in principle, the parties finalized the form of the Zoning By-law Amendment and executed a Section 37 Agreement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and directed the City to amend the Zoning By-law in accordance with the finalized settlement.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit the addition of 56 rental stacked townhouse units to a site with two existing apartment buildings.

The parties reached a settlement, supported by uncontested expert planning evidence, which included a reduced parking rate justified by a parking utilization study.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning amendment and site plan drawings, finding the proposal consistent with provincial policy and representing good planning by broadening the range and mix of housing types.

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Official Plan Amendment appeal was withdrawn.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, finding they are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to applicable plans, and represent good planning in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to address contamination from a former manufactured gas plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving the revocation of the original order, the issuance of a new order specifying risk management measures for the affected properties, and the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the issuance of the new order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contamination associated with a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeals to allow for continued discussions and the implementation of work plans.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and reasonable as progress was being made and there was no immediate threat to human health or the environment.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to dismiss Great Land (Westwood) Inc.'s application for expropriation compensation, arguing that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

Great Land sought a declaration of compensation for expropriated land and a a declaration regarding the validity of alleged contracts for nominal land dedication.

The court found that the essential character of Great Land's claim, including contractual disputes, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OMB under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

Consequently, York's motion was granted, and Great Land's application was dismissed, with the matter directed to proceed via arbitration before the OMB.

The moving party sought a stay of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing pending a motion for leave to appeal the Board's decision dismissing its motion to remove the responding parties' lawyers of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the moving party failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The applicant, a pipe fitter, was seriously injured in a gas explosion and commenced a civil action for damages.

The respondents brought a 'right to sue' application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), which determined the applicant was a worker, not an independent contractor, and thus barred from suing.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision was reasonable, grounded in evidence, and properly applied the legal test for independent contractor status.

Beechridge Farms Inc. sought leave to appeal a decision of an Ontario Municipal Board Review Panel that ordered a new hearing.

The Review Panel had found that the original hearing member breached procedural fairness by refusing to grant the respondents a short adjournment to consider the implications of the newly enacted Places to Grow Act and its Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Review Panel's conclusion that the refusal of the adjournment was unreasonable and a denial of natural justice.