Environmental Law

The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal of a development permit application for a six-storey residential building in a regulated area of Spencer Creek.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a development permit conditionally approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The permit allowed the installation of a septic system for an agricultural-related building.

The appellant's sole reason for appeal was that the development was 'not good for environment.' At the hearing, the appellant indicated she only wanted to ask questions and did not seem to understand she had commenced an appeal.

The Hearing Officer found the appeal was without merit and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to section 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, deeming the Commission's decision confirmed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The parties settled the costs of the appeal, agreeing that the respondent would pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $75,000.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding sewage works.

Following a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also determined the order of evidence, directing the appellants to present their case first.

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 Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and objections to an Aggregate Resources Act license application for a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal consolidated the two matters, declined to schedule a further CMC, and scheduled a 20-day video hearing.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the passing of Official Plan Amendment No. 732 and a related zoning by-law which established an Environmentally Significant Area boundary.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested a second CMC because the City was in the process of passing a new OPA to amend its 2016 Official Plan, which the appellant expected to appeal and consolidate with the current matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a second CMC, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

The applicant applied for a Class A licence to excavate aggregate from a quarry.

Following objections, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry referred the application to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal reviewed the roles of parties, noted the self-represented status of the objectors, and approved a Procedural Order on consent.

A three-day video hearing was scheduled to address predicted impacts on the natural environment, water resources, and blasting.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because they had made progress in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to receive updates and potentially schedule a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal issued a final order approving a Zoning By-law Amendment, an Official Plan Amendment, and directing the issuance of a Category A, Class 2 licence under the Aggregate Resources Act for the expansion of an existing quarry.

This followed an interim decision where the final order was withheld pending confirmation of a satisfactory Zoning By-law Amendment, a Traffic Safety Agreement including a Trucker Safety Protocol, and a revised Site Plan Amendment application.

The parties confirmed these conditions were met.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Guelph, the Florence Lane Residents Group, and Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc., finding their participation necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to revise two issues on the draft Issues List to ensure they are framed in a neutral context.

A further Case Management Conference and a nine-day merit hearing were scheduled.

Capital Paving Inc. appealed the Township of Woolwich's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new sand and gravel pit.

The applicant also appealed the related Aggregate Resources Act licence application.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with local Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approved the planning instruments, and directed the issuance of the aggregate licence.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by St. Mary's Cement Inc. and Rosedale Securities Limited from the failure of the County of Wellington and Township of Puslinch to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a gravel pit expansion.

The County requested that the hearing on the merits be delayed until a related Aggregate Resources Act license application is referred to the Tribunal by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Tribunal maintained the previously scheduled hearing dates but agreed that the Procedural Order and Issues List cannot be finalized until the license referral occurs, scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of conditions imposed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on a permission to construct a residential dwelling.

The Tribunal set deadlines for the production of a refined Issues List and a final Procedural Order.

A four-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on March 11, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City of London's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and failure to make a decision on a draft Plan of Subdivision, to facilitate a 1,300-unit residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal, which included the relocation of a wetland that no longer qualified as provincially significant, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments subject to conditions.

The appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring environmental investigation and reporting regarding potential trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at its site, pending an appeal hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting that potential compliance costs could be pursued in ongoing civil litigation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in identifying the source of the TCE contamination.

The Appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring it to take actions to address potential contamination at its property, pending an appeal.

The Tribunal found it had the authority to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the historic contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay.

The Appellant failed to establish irreparable harm, as its financial costs were potentially recoverable in ongoing civil litigation and did not outweigh the public interest in identifying and managing the source of trichloroethylene contamination.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for official plan amendments and an Aggregate Resources Act license to permit a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to six entities, including the City of Burlington and the Regional Municipality of Halton, and participant status to 66 individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address a forthcoming motion for consolidation.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment to establish a secondary plan for a large master-planned community.

All parties except one landowner reached a settlement.

The opposing landowner argued the plan did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan due to proposed collector roads crossing the Greenbelt, and sought to have its lands excluded.

The Tribunal found that the approved Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) established conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and that the Tribunal should rely on it.

The Tribunal also found no planning basis to exclude the opposing landowner's lands from the comprehensive secondary plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the settlement plan in principle.

A tenant operating a dry cleaning business appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for wrongful termination of his commercial lease.

The landlord had terminated the tenancy based on the tenant's failure to complete a government-approved training course in the management of contaminants and wastes, as required by regulation and the lease.

The Court of Appeal found that the landlord failed to comply with the strict notice requirements under the Commercial Tenancies Act by not identifying the specific breach in the termination notice.

The court also found that the tenant had presented uncontradicted evidence that the required course was unavailable and that the Ministry of the Environment had inspected the premises, suggesting the tenant may have satisfied the regulatory requirements through alternative means.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for assessment of damages.