David N. Germain

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant for the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the prescribed time.

The application seeks to permit an industrial and warehousing facility.

The Tribunal granted conditional party status to the Region of Peel to monitor servicing issues, and participant status to a nearby resident.

A three-day video hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate the construction of a grain milling, seed-cleaning, and blending facility on prime agricultural land.

The appellants argued that the proposed use was industrial and did not conform to the applicable official plans or constitute an agriculture-related use under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal found that the official plans, as amended by site-specific amendments passed after the by-law, applied to the analysis and that the Clergy principle did not operate to restrict the Tribunal to former policies.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed facility constituted an agriculture-related use, conformed to the amended official plans, and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed conditions of draft plan approval for a subdivision to facilitate a townhouse development.

The contentious conditions required the applicant to obtain concurrence from CN Railway for drainage alterations, enter into an agreement with CN, and grant CN an environmental easement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that these conditions inappropriately delegated approval authority to a private company and were not reasonable land use planning matters.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the contentious conditions and revised the clearance condition accordingly.

The applicant sought approval of revised draft plan of subdivision and draft plan conditions, and the issuance of the Phase 2 Order for a residential development in the Town of Milton.

The Tribunal had previously withheld the Phase 2 Order pending the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the registration of private agreements and a restriction on pre-sales until servicing allocation was secured.

Based on uncontested affidavit evidence from a land use planner confirming that these conditions had been met and that all parties consented to the revisions, the Tribunal approved the revised draft plan and conditions, issued the Phase 2 Order, and extended the lapsing date by three years.

Darien Aggregates Inc. brought a motion to determine whether an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment by North Shore Environmental Resource Advocates Inc. was moot.

The zoning by-law amendment permitted a new quarry on Crown land.

Darien argued that under s. 34(9) of the Aggregate Resources Act, a zoning by-law cannot prohibit or regulate the establishment of a quarry on Crown land, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the outcome of the appeal would have no practical effect on the Ministry's ability to issue an aggregate permit.

The Tribunal also held that municipal by-laws cannot regulate the operation of quarries on Crown land.

The motion was allowed and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment relating to driveway widths, trailer parking, and open storage.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the properties at 11 and 33 Perdue Court.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed site-specific amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and Town of Caledon Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon zoning exceptions.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a dry grain processing plant.

The appellants requested that planning evidence from experts be excluded, arguing the issues were questions of law.

The Tribunal declined to pre-emptively exclude expert evidence, noting it is routine and helpful, and that admissibility should be determined by the presiding member at the merit hearing.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a draft plan of condominium and zoning by-law amendment to permit a four-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving site plan modifications, including a revised parking layout and the addition of storage sheds.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the municipality's planner, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the municipal Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 31.

Based on minutes of settlement and uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications resolving the appeals of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Elizabeth Robertson, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The remaining appeal by JDCL regarding mineral resource extraction and agricultural system mapping was scoped to be site-specific and adjourned sine die to allow for further discussions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into three residential lots and associated minor variances.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert evidence in land use planning, ecology, and civil engineering supporting the proposal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed consent and minor variances met all requisite legislative tests under the Planning Act, conformed to applicable provincial and municipal plans, and represented good planning in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the minor variances.

Vidhya Ramdas appealed two permanent injunction orders issued against her for undertaking unauthorized work on her property within a regulated wetland.

She argued the application judge erred by denying an adjournment and by not requiring the matter to proceed to trial due to contested facts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the adjournment refusal given the overwhelming evidence that Ramdas proceeded with excavations without the requisite permits.

The court also provided observations on the duties of judges and counsel when dealing with self-represented litigants, noting that opposing counsel were remiss in not fully informing the application judge about the interim injunction and served materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Sovereign Ransom Street Limited against the Town of Halton Hills' refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed 10-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four local residents on consent.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for March 2022, and a procedural order with an issues list was approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Town of Shelburne's failure to render a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit a 17-space surface parking area and landscaped garden on a vacant lot.

The parking area was intended to serve an existing long-term care facility located nearby.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development constituted intensification by increasing the use of the land, made efficient use of existing infrastructure, and conformed to the Town's Official Plan policies as an appropriate secondary use.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the Town to amend the zoning by-law and approving the site plan.

The applicant appealed the Town of Mono's refusal to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a Class "A" Category 3 aggregate extraction pit.

The applicant also sought a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, which was referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal heard extensive expert evidence on geology, hydrogeology, natural heritage, noise, traffic, dust, agriculture, visual impacts, and land use planning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed pit would not cause unacceptable adverse impacts and that appropriate mitigation measures were established.

The Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the amendments and directing the issuance of the licence subject to the execution of a development agreement and finalization of site plans.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment application to permit the re-severance of six lots that had inadvertently merged in title.

The parties reached a settlement after addressing the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority's concerns regarding natural hazards and heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Official Plan to permit the severance subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 27-hectare gravel pit.

The applicant also applied for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, which was referred to the Tribunal due to outstanding objections.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert evidence on land use planning, hydrogeology, agrology, and traffic engineering, which demonstrated that the proposed aggregate extraction operation is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to local official plans, and will not have adverse impacts on groundwater, natural heritage features, or traffic safety.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approved the planning instruments, and directed the Minister to issue the aggregate licence.

The appellant school board appealed a municipal order requiring it to pay clean-up costs for a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that provided for the recovery of previous costs and the sharing of future remediation costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the municipal order to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, approving the settlement and dismissing the proceeding.

The Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board appealed a municipal order requiring it to pay clean-up costs for a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for the recovery of previous costs and the sharing of future remediation costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the proposed revocation of the municipal order, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the proceeding.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The Township of Amaranth sought declarations and a permanent injunction against Vidhya Ramdas for contravening its Site Alteration By-law and a Stop Work Order by performing unauthorized fill activities on her property.

Ramdas failed to file responding materials despite multiple adjournments and court orders.

The court found deliberate and continuing breaches of the by-law and the orders, granting the Township's application for declarations, a permanent injunction, remedial orders for property restoration, and costs.