D. Donnelly

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Thomas Cavanagh Construction Ltd. for a proposed quarry expansion.

The appeals related to the City of Ottawa's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and a referral by the Ministry of Natural Resources concerning a Class A Licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the three matters to ensure an efficient and orderly hearing process.

A 27-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in October 2026.

The appellant appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to permit an 88-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant scaled back the proposed development to 35 residential units and three detached dwellings, and revised the instruments to the satisfaction of the appellant and added party.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the property owners, Kirby 27 Development Limited and Copper Kirby Development Limited.

Despite the appellants' request to delay scheduling due to pending court matters, the Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day video hearing on the merits to commence in June 2025.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the building height to 14 storeys and removed balconies to address compatibility concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The moving parties sought costs against the Township of Clearview following the Township's withdrawal of its appeals regarding a development permit application and a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment.

The moving parties argued that the Township's conduct, which included multiple adjournment requests and a failure to properly classify the environmental assessment, was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Township argued that the Tribunal was functus officio following the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that it retained jurisdiction to award costs but dismissed the motions, finding that the Township's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant under section 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties advised that minutes of settlement had been reached with the municipality, but discussions with the added party were ongoing.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Muskoka Environmental Alliance Inc. against a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Bracebridge.

The amendment would permit the expansion of the Childs Pit/Quarry operation.

The parties agreed that a forthcoming appeal under the Aggregate Resources Act should be consolidated with this matter.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow for the referral and consolidation of the appeals.

A teleconference call was held to obtain a status update on the fulfillment of conditions required for the issuance of a final order regarding an aggregate extraction expansion.

The parties confirmed that two of three conditions were met, with the remaining condition being an agreement on a traffic camera and Trucker Safety Protocol.

The Tribunal directed the respondent municipality to provide a response to the county and to provide the applicant with an agreement regarding the traffic camera and safety protocol by specified dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the legislated timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local residents' group and participant status to numerous individuals on consent.

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

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development proposal for Phase 5 of the Lakeside Village Development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a community association on consent.

The parties requested a 12-day hearing for Phase II, which the Tribunal scheduled for August and September 2023.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding provision and permit an access dock in a Type 1 Fish Habitat zone to facilitate cottage development on a water-access island property.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed dock and associated boating activity would have no negative impact on the highly sensitive aquatic vegetation and potential species at risk habitat.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that detailed environmental impact studies could be deferred to the site plan approval stage, holding that such studies are required at the zoning stage to establish the feasibility of the development.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development.

During the hearing, the Tribunal made several procedural rulings, notably excluding the appellant's ecological expert witness from giving opinion evidence because her self-described role as an advocate demonstrated an inability to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan testimony.

The Tribunal also struck hearsay reports from a non-testifying expert and excluded late-filed documents.

Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement modifying the development proposal to increase environmental protection areas and adjust the residential mix.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The applicant sought official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as an aggregate license, to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

The municipality and local residents opposed the expansion, raising concerns about noise, air quality, blasting (specifically flyrock), traffic safety, and social impacts.

The Tribunal evaluated expert evidence and found that the proposed expansion, with its integrated mitigation and monitoring measures, would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal rejected the objectors' request for a fixed flyrock exclusion zone and found the applicant's proposed traffic safety protocols sufficient.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and license were approved in principle.

The applicants and the City of Vaughan brought motions for costs against the appellants, Humberplex Developments Inc. and Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc., following the dismissal of their appeals regarding Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48.

The costs motions primarily related to a motion to strike brought by the appellants, which sought to exclude expert planning evidence based on hearsay and innuendo regarding alleged bias and improper influence.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct in bringing the motion to strike was unreasonable and warranted an award of costs.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in costs to the applicants and $20,000 to the City, payable primarily by Humberplex.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that found the insurer provided inadequate reasons for denying the respondent's treatment plans and requesting an insurer's examination under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Executive Chair reasonably concluded the original adjudicator erred in law by accepting boilerplate reasons.

The court affirmed that an insurer must provide meaningful reasons to permit an insured to decide whether to challenge a denial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated Income Replacement Benefits and sought to preclude the applicant from proceeding to arbitration on the basis that the applicant failed to attend section 44 insurer examinations.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notices for the section 44 examinations failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator also found that treatment plans were not required for transportation expenses or prescription expenses under $250, and that the case management services claim could proceed.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration on all claimed benefits.