Anthony Fleming

The applicant appealed the Township of Horton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a Class A gravel pit.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they had reached a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing event to consider the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's Shoreline Preservation By-law, which introduced a 30-metre setback and natural vegetative buffer requirement around waterbodies to conform with the updated County Official Plan.

The appellant argued the by-law was overly prescriptive and unreasonably restricted land use.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County Official Plan, which explicitly requires a 30-metre setback and vegetative buffer to protect water quality and ecological functions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to add a definition of 'vegetative buffer' and a provision permitting minor maintenance and pruning, but otherwise dismissed the appeal, concluding the by-law represented good planning and appropriately balanced public environmental interests with private property rights.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Shoreline Preservation By-law passed by the Municipality of Hastings Highlands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 47 individuals on consent of the parties.

The parties were directed to confer on a revised draft Procedural Order and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

An eight-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. against the City of Kingston's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal noted that only issues related to the number of bedrooms and the height of accessory buildings would proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The parties agreed to a two-day video hearing for expert testimony followed by written legal submissions.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and dispensed with the need for a formal Procedural Order.

The applicants sought to transfer an appeal from the Mining and Lands Tribunal to the Superior Court of Justice under section 107 of the Mining Act.

The underlying appeal concerned the refusal of a permit by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act for a pool house.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the original proceeding was not "under the Mining Act." Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion to transfer, as the matter fell within the specialized expertise of the Tribunal and did not raise general legal principles outside its scope.

The court also rejected arguments regarding tribunal delay and the deteriorating condition of the structure, noting the applicants' own conduct in building without a permit.

The appellant sought to quash a municipal by-law renaming a public square, arguing that the city council held closed meetings in violation of the Municipal Act.

The Court of Appeal found that while the council failed to pass a sufficient resolution before going into closed session and conducted an unauthorized vote, these were procedural irregularities.

Because the final decision to pass the by-law was made after lengthy debate at an open public meeting, the by-law was not tainted by illegality.

The appeal was dismissed.