Darwin Harasym

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce a side yard setback from 6 metres to 1.5 metres for a covered porch on a reconstructed cottage.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and would have minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The appellant appealed the Essex Region Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a development permit for the reconstruction of a residential structure located within flood and erosion hazard lands.

The Tribunal found that while the scope of the works constituted a reconstruction and therefore a 'development activity' requiring a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act, the permit should be issued.

The Tribunal determined that the works, which were primarily internal renovations within the existing footprint, would not create new hazards or aggravate existing ones, and were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Essex Region Conservation Authority's decision to deny a permit for the reconstruction of a house and detached structure.

The Tribunal approved the final draft Procedural Order and scheduled a three-day video hearing to commence on June 24, 2025.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay an action arising from a cottage sale dispute on the basis of res judicata, abuse of process, and multiple unpaid costs orders from prior related proceedings.

The court held that the plaintiff's new claim merely attempted to re-litigate the enforceability of an agreement of purchase and sale that had already been decided against him in earlier proceedings and unsuccessfully challenged on appeal.

The court found both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel established, and further held that the plaintiff's failure to pay outstanding costs orders independently justified dismissal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim against the second defendant was also struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

In the alternative, the court held that security for costs of $42,940 would have been appropriate if the action were to continue.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Essex Region Conservation Authority's denial of a permit to reconstruct a house and detached structure.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and finalized the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day merit hearing to determine whether the proposed works constitute a development under the Conservation Authorities Act and whether a permit should be allowed.

The appellant appealed the Essex Region Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction of a house and detached structure.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties discussed the issues, which included whether the reconstruction constituted 'development' and whether safety considerations were properly applied.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference and ordered the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.