David Donnelly

The Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan.

The parties disputed the contents of the Issues List.

The Appellants sought to include policies related to aggregates, rural and resource management, transportation, and water, arguing the Provincial Planning Statement must be read in its entirety.

The District and added parties argued the Issues List should be restricted to issues specifically named in the Notices of Appeal, consistent with a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal agreed with the District, finding its Issues List best complied with the prior order and provided a fair and just process.

A 13-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for February 2027, and a Procedural Order was issued.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding a proposed below-water mineral aggregate extraction operation, the Ontario Land Tribunal consolidated three related appeals.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, recognizing the Crown's duty to consult on matters affecting Aboriginal or treaty rights, and to the Friends of Lanark Highlands as neighbouring landowners.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

St. Rita at Marylake Long Term Care Home brought a motion for costs against Save The Oak Ridges Moraine and Kingscross Ratepayers Association following the dismissal of their application for leave to appeal a Permit to Take Water.

St. Rita argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and brought solely to delay the development of a long-term care facility.

The Tribunal found that while the leave application was unsuccessful and partly raised issues outside its jurisdiction, the appellants' conduct did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motion for costs was denied.

Skycroft Campground appealed the Township of South Frontenac's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a significant expansion of its campsites and cabins.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed development would have no negative impacts on natural heritage features or their ecological functions.

The Tribunal found the Environmental Impact Study was improperly scoped and methodologically flawed, particularly regarding species at risk such as the Cerulean Warbler and Gray Ratsnake.

Furthermore, the scale of the proposed expansion did not conform to the density and waterfront amenity requirements of the Township's Official Plan.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The Lake Associations brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Our Muskoka, Miller Paving, and Elizabeth Lippa against the District's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the plan was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the District Official Plan, as required by s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, dismissing Our Muskoka's appeal entirely for lacking the mandatory explanations and land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Miller Paving and Lippa appeals in part, scoping them to remove broad claims of non-conformity that lacked specific policy references.

Galibier Materials Inc. appealed the Township of Springwater's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the expansion of an existing aggregate pit.

The Minister of Natural Resources also referred the associated Licence Application to the Tribunal.

Objectors raised concerns regarding air quality impacts from dust and the preservation of a wildlife corridor.

The Tribunal found that the proposed Dust Management Plan and revised phasing and rehabilitation plans adequately addressed the concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approved the planning instruments, and directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to conditions, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The Manors of Belfountain Corp. appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision, while the Town and a community organization appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the same residential project.

The Tribunal considered extensive expert evidence on hydrogeology, stormwater management, and natural heritage, particularly concerning potential impacts on local groundwater, private wells, and sensitive Brook Trout habitat.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed phased development, supported by advanced wastewater treatment and rigorous monitoring conditions, would not cause negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal confirmed the development permit and approved the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to agreed conditions.

The moving party, Friends of Ball’s Bridge & Little Lakes, brought a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing hearing regarding a proposed gravel pit.

The new evidence included an MNR inspection report, a corrected property survey, wood turtle sighting documents, and videos of dust emissions.

The Tribunal applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence.

The Tribunal admitted the MNR report, the survey, and the wood turtle documents, finding them relevant and not obtainable before the filing deadlines.

However, the Tribunal refused to admit the dust videos, finding they could have been produced earlier and their late admission would prejudice the responding party, who had already closed its case.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and applied for an Aggregate Resources Act license to permit the expansion of the West Carleton Quarry.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals to be heard together.

The Tribunal also granted party and participant status to various objectors and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired under criterion 8 of the AMA Guides.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by considering pre- and post-accident levels of function and erred in law by imposing a higher burden of proof for marked impairments in three domains.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal held that it properly applied the AMA Guides, appropriately weighed the medical evidence, and correctly placed less weight on an occupational therapy report that lacked an in-home assessment.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss appeals of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan filed by the responding parties.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the Official Plan was inconsistent with provincial policy or failed to conform to the District Official Plan, and failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the alleged lack of conformity and inconsistency were not clearly identified or explained in the original notices of appeal as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water for post-construction foundation drainage at a proposed long-term care home on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to meet the stringent test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's decision was reasonable, based on a thorough technical review, and included conditions to prevent environmental harm.

The applicants' concerns were largely speculative, outside the scope of the permit, or related to broader opposition to the development rather than the water-taking itself.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 due to mental and behavioral disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing irritable bowel syndrome and depression, along with the loss of family members, were the primary causes of her impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding the applicant suffered only moderate (Class 3) impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, and pace.

As the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment and had exhausted her $65,000 non-catastrophic limits, all claims for disputed treatment plans and expenses were dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, with the Township alleging that certain issues raised by the appellants did not comply with the Planning Act regarding consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan.

The appellants argued that a motion on the validity of the Issues List would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to address these disputes and directed the provision of updated policy changes.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and its subsequent extension, which temporarily prohibited new gravel pits and quarries on certain lands to allow the Town to review and update its aggregate resource policies.

The appellant, who sought to develop an aggregate operation on affected lands, argued the ICBL was unnecessary, improperly motivated to thwart its application, and failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for ICBLs and found that the Town strictly complied with section 38 of the Planning Act, substantiated a valid planning rationale for the policy review, ensured conformity with the Official Plan, and conducted the review fairly and expeditiously within the statutory timeframe.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit expansion, the Chiefs of Ontario brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it in the public interest to adjudicate the issues with fulsome evidence, including from the Chiefs of Ontario, and that the potential prejudice to First Nations communities outweighed any perceived prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated January 15, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the end date of the merit hearing from Friday, June 24, 2025, to Friday, June 20, 2025.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties disputed whether certain issues on the draft Issues List complied with the statutory requirements of s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in further discussions and explore Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the Issues List.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing regarding Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies until the Issues List is finalized.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.