Andrew Burton

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit and aggregate extraction operation, the parties jointly requested the suspension of all remaining deliverable deadlines in the current Procedural Order.

The suspension was requested to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and consultations with Indigenous groups.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit, the parties jointly requested the suspension of all remaining deliverable deadlines in the current Procedural Order.

The suspension was requested to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and the completion of consultations with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the submission of a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Niagara Falls requested an adjournment of an upcoming hearing regarding 2023 planning instruments, arguing the proceeding may become moot due to a prior Tribunal decision that precluded the appellant's appeal of superseding 2025 planning instruments under Bill 185.

The appellant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled hearing to allow the appellant time to consider whether to seek a review or appeal of the prior decision, and to avoid potentially unnecessary proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update within 60 days.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for directions to determine whether Cytec Canada Inc. had standing to appeal three planning instruments under the Planning Act.

Following amendments by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, appeals are restricted to 'specified persons'.

Cytec argued it qualified as an environmental compliance approval (ECA) holder.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of subsection 1(1)(l) of the Planning Act requires the ECA activity to be undertaken on lands within 300 metres of the planning area.

Because Cytec's ECA applied to lands further away, and not to its 'Beechwood Lands' within the 300-metre radius, it did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal ordered that Cytec's appeals were precluded.

At a Case Management Conference regarding proposed aggregate extraction operations, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered whether multiple appeals under the Planning Act, Aggregate Resources Act, and Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act should be consolidated or heard together.

The Tribunal ordered that the matters be heard together pursuant to section 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, finding it to be a fair and efficient way to deal with all issues without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal also scheduled future hearing dates and directed ongoing Indigenous consultation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in the Title of Proceedings of its previous decision dated April 11, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal deleted the original Title of Proceedings and replaced it with the corrected version.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests to schedule a hearing and for an order for discovery.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing or order discovery, noting that Indigenous consultation with Six Nations of the Grand River was ongoing and peer reviews were not yet complete.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow time for these processes to advance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 44 to the Glen Williams Secondary Plan.

Only one appeal by 1404649 Ontario Ltd. remained active.

The parties requested additional time to consult on a settlement proposal.

The Tribunal scheduled a fifth Case Management Conference for May 15, 2024, to allow the Town of Halton Hills to seek instructions from Council and consult with the local residents' association.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and referred an Aggregate Resources Act licence application to the Tribunal to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal considered expert evidence on air quality, noise, transportation, and land use planning.

The Tribunal found that the proposed pit would have minimal to negligible health risks, would comply with noise guidelines, and that traffic impacts would be mitigated through road reconstruction.

The Tribunal concluded the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, the zoning by-law was amended, and the Minister was directed to issue the licence.

The appellant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 7 (Georgetown GO Station Area Secondary Plan) as they applied to their property.

The appellant sought to retain the previous zoning to permit a residential apartment building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the site was not needed for intensification to meet the Secondary Plan's goals, and that without a specific development proposal, compatibility with the adjacent low-density neighbourhood could not be adequately assessed.

The Tribunal also found that any alleged downzoning was justified by the public interest in comprehensive planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a consolidated hearing for related appeals, finding it premature as the Minister had not yet referred the aggregate licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and an adjacent property owner.

Participant status was granted to two individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 2023 to allow time for related applications to be filed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. for a zoning by-law amendment and an aggregate licence to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and scheduled a motion hearing to address the potential exclusion of witnesses.

The Tribunal also heard factual information regarding Minutes of Settlement reached between the applicant, the Township, and the Region, while deferring the hearing on the merits to a previously scheduled date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 44 by the Town of Halton Hills and the Regional Municipality of Halton.

One appellant withdrew its appeal prior to the hearing.

The remaining appellants requested additional time to facilitate ongoing discussions regarding site-specific planning applications, potentially leading to a settlement or withdrawal of the appeals.

On consent, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Draft Procedural Order and scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference for September 25, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision.

The parties requested a third CMC as the municipality and region were still reviewing the applicant's third submission.

The Tribunal scheduled a third CMC for May 24, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to that date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. for a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Aggregate Resources Act licence to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal formally consolidated the two appeals on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference to consider proposed Minutes of Settlement and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the hearing.

The moving party brought a motion to consolidate its appeal regarding an official plan amendment with its other appeals concerning zoning by-law and subdivision applications.

The responding party opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that the notice of motion was served only seven days before the hearing, in contravention of the mandatory 15-day requirement under Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

As the supporting affidavit provided no reason for the short service, the Tribunal declined to abridge the time and dismissed the motion.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court considered the offender's long criminal record, disadvantaged background, and status as an addict-trafficker, alongside the extreme danger posed by fentanyl and the loaded handgun.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a total sentence of 9.5 years, comprising 7 years of new custody and 2.5 years of pre-sentence credit.