Bruce Engell

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 13, 2021, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The amendment corrected a paragraph reference to include an additional page from the Motion Record and attached the missing schedule.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating short-term rental accommodations.

The Tribunal addressed the settlement of a motion for the production of documents, finalized the Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a seven-day hearing for March 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for the hearing of appeals concerning the Township of Springwater's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2 and Zoning By-law Amendment, which would permit a waste management facility in the Freele County Forest.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, which will be conducted by videoconference in two parts, and establishes the requirements for the parties before the hearing, including the exchange of witness lists, expert witness meetings, and the filing of participant statements.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Town of Ajax, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the new owners of the subject lands.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a finalized Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 and Orlando Corporation's appeals concerning the City's failure to approve its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion to modify the Official Plan Amendment, and Orlando Corporation announced a proposed settlement of its zoning appeal, subject to the City's motion.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the filing of motion and settlement materials and scheduled a telephone conference hearing to consider both matters.

The applicant appealed the Town of Ajax's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, a community group requested party status but was denied because it was not yet formally incorporated, though they were permitted to reapply at the next CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

Several property owners appealed the City of Vaughan's 2010 Official Plan regarding policies affecting the Centre Street Corridor.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modified policies and map schedules to allow for increased building heights, density, and mixed uses along the transit corridor while ensuring appropriate transition to adjacent low-rise neighbourhoods.

The Tribunal denied a late request for Party status from a ratepayers association.

Accepting the uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified policies are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represent good planning, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modified policies.

The City of Toronto and its Clerk brought an application for declaratory relief regarding the coming into force of by-laws establishing a 47-ward structure for the 2018 municipal election and the resulting composition of city council.

The respondents had previously raised concerns about a potential 'legal vacuum' in their unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, declining to exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief because there was no live legal dispute between the parties, affected voters had not been given notice, and the application effectively sought an inappropriate advisory opinion.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a 47-ward structure for the City of Toronto's municipal elections.

They argued the Board erred in law by failing to prioritize voter parity and by not requiring a corresponding by-law changing the composition of City Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's application of the Carter principles for effective representation.

The court held that the moving parties were improperly challenging findings of fact and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine council composition.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend a building permit issued by the town for the construction of a dock on a neighbouring waterfront property.

The applicant argued the proposed location differed from a previously approved site plan and would eventually house a boathouse that would obstruct his view.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the planning process, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the dock's construction, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent property owner.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the validity of certain provisions of a City of Ottawa zoning by-law.

The OMB had found some provisions valid, some invalid, and sent others back to the City for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while the issue was important and the standard of review was reasonableness, the appeal was premature because the final language of the by-law had not yet been settled by the City's reconsideration.

The appellant municipality discovered an 1854 by-law purporting to establish a public road along the shoreline of Georgian Bay.

It registered the by-law in 2007 and sought a declaration that the road was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondents, who own cottage properties on the purported road, successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that summary judgment was appropriate, the 1854 by-law lacked sufficient certainty to establish a road, and the unregistered by-law was void against the respondents who had no actual notice of it.

Following the dismissal of an action seeking a declaration that a public road existed along the shoreline of Georgian Bay properties, several defendant groups sought costs.

The defendants argued for substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct by the municipality, while the plaintiff contended that costs should be limited and apportioned globally among defendants.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court assessed partial indemnity costs individually for each successful defendant group, reducing some claims to account for duplication, inefficiencies, and unsupported expert disbursements.

Costs were awarded separately to the defendants in amounts the court found reasonable and proportionate.

The City of Port Colborne sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which found that Nyon Oil Inc. had standing to appeal the City's refusal to amend its official plan and zoning by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and erred in finding Nyon was an 'applicant' under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine its own scope and reasonably concluded that the City acted as Nyon's agent in applying for the amendments.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his claim based on the defence of qualified privilege.

The appellant argued the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error regarding the sequence of events and the appellant's objections to a development.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made strong credibility findings against the appellant and correctly concluded the appellant had no genuine objection, making the defence of qualified privilege available.

The appellants appealed an order amending a consent judgment regarding the submission of plans for the removal of support beams.

The motion judge amended the judgment to reflect the mutual intent of the parties, as the original language did not accomplish the goal of filing plans that would satisfy the City of Toronto's requirements for a building permit.

The Court of Appeal found the rectification was justified and dismissed the appeal, extending the deadline for submitting the plans on consent.

The appeal concerned a municipal restructuring proposal that combined a minor land transfer between neighbouring municipalities with the annexation of multiple unorganized townships, thereby avoiding the need for majority support from electors in the affected unorganized territory.

The court held that municipalities must act within both the letter and the purpose of their enabling legislation, and that a by-law inconsistent with the policy underlying the Municipal Act is ultra vires and illegal.

The impugned by-law and resolution were found to be a device to circumvent the statutory consultation and support structure contemplated by s. 25.2.

The appeal was dismissed and the quashing order upheld.