Andrew Reeson

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law designating their property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal evaluated whether the property, a mid-19th century vernacular wood frame house, met the prescribed criteria under O. Reg. 9/06.

The Tribunal found the property met three criteria: it is a rare and representative example of a Gothic Revival Ontario Cottage, it displays a high degree of artistic merit, and it has contextual value due to its historical links to the area's agricultural roots.

The appeal was allowed in part only to amend the by-law to reflect these specific findings, and otherwise dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion for directions seeking four orders in relation to an appeal of a heritage designation by-law.

The appellant sought a publication ban, recognition as litigation guardian for his deceased wife, recognition of his daughter as his power of attorney, and leave to amend the reasons for appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for a publication ban, finding insufficient evidentiary basis to override the open court principle.

The Tribunal substituted the appellant as the sole appellant following his wife's passing but dismissed the litigation guardian request.

The Tribunal dismissed the power of attorney request as outside its jurisdiction.

Finally, the Tribunal denied leave to amend the reasons for appeal, finding no statutory authority to retroactively change or add new issues to the original notice of appeal.

The appellant property owner appealed an inspection order requiring the installation of secondary exits for two apartments in a multi-unit residential building.

The appellant argued that existing windows in the units complied with the Ontario Building Code and should be accepted as secondary exits under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found no evidence that the windows were approved as secondary exits under the Building Code and held that the Fire Code does not permit windows to serve as exits for this type of building.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly allow for alternative measures approved by the Chief Fire Official and extended the compliance date.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application to sever a residential property into two lots.

The City opposed the severance, arguing that the reduced lot frontages would destabilize the neighbourhood and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the proposed lots were compatible with the eclectic lot fabric of the surrounding area, which included several narrow lots.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of income for social assistance purposes.

The Tribunal had included a loan incurred for refinancing an existing student loan as income.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The Court held that there is implicit discretion under s. 48(1) of O.Reg. 134/98 to exclude a loan where the recipient receives no actual financial benefit or increase in assets.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The Kingston Fire and Rescue Services (KFRS) issued an Inspection Order requiring the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board to construct a fire separation in a school's stairwells.

The School Board appealed the order but completed the required work prior to the appeal's final disposition.

KFRS brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of mootness.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the motion, finding that the live controversy regarding KFRS's authority to issue the order remained unresolved.

The Commission further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the appeal due to the important public safety issues and broader implications for other schools.