Demetrius Antonios Kappos

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit to sever an existing lot into three additional lots and retain one lot for residential development.

The subject property is located in a prime agricultural and specialty crop area within the Escarpment Protection Area.

The Hearing Office found that the proposal conflicted with the lot creation policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, as the original township lot had already been severed beyond permitted limits.

The proposal was also found to be inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and did not conform to the Town and Region Official Plans regarding density, lot size, and agricultural protection.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit for a wedding event venue on agricultural lands.

The Applicants brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, arguing the issues had been previously litigated in multiple prior appeals.

The Hearing Office found that the requirements for res judicata and issue estoppel were met, as the issues had been previously decided or were outside its jurisdiction.

The Hearing Office concluded the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, was frivolous and vexatious, and was not in the public interest.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The appellants were charged with unlawfully damaging and/or destroying protected rattlesnake habitat contrary to the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

They brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay, which was dismissed by the trial judge.

The appellants then sought certiorari and s. 24(1) Charter relief in Superior Court, arguing the trial judge failed to characterize certain disclosure as "obviously relevant" and failed to attribute all delay to the Crown.

The Superior Court dismissed both applications.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no jurisdictional error and rejecting the argument that the degree of relevance of outstanding disclosure alleviates the defence's obligation to act diligently.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellants regarding the refusal of a development permit for agricultural uses, including a vineyard and storage structures.

The Commission argued the appeal lacked planning justification and merit because the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction to declare whether the uses were exempt existing uses.

The Hearing Officer denied the motion, finding that determining whether the Commission's decision was correct inherently involves considering whether the proposed uses are exempt, which falls within the statutory mandate and is in the public interest.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever an existing lot into three additional lots.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which the Tribunal approved.

A one-day video hearing was scheduled for November 24, 2025.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a development permit application by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

At the commencement of the hearing, the appellants requested that the hearing be held in two phases.

The Hearing Officer denied the request, finding that a single hearing would be the most cost-effective and efficient manner to adjudicate the appeal.

On the request of the parties, the hearing was adjourned to allow sufficient time to prepare for a single hearing.

The Tribunal issued an amended procedural order and scheduled dates for the hearing and a motion to dismiss.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a refused development permit application, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to local residents on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 5-day video hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit and aggregate extraction operation, the parties jointly requested the suspension of all remaining deliverable deadlines in the current Procedural Order.

The suspension was requested to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and consultations with Indigenous groups.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit, the parties jointly requested the suspension of all remaining deliverable deadlines in the current Procedural Order.

The suspension was requested to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and the completion of consultations with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the submission of a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Joris Salverda guilty of operating a milk plant without a licence contrary to s. 15(1) of the Milk Act and breaching a probation order under s. 75 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Defendant challenged the applicability of the Milk Act to his private raw milk operation via a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that the Act did not apply to his private dealings with customers who assumed risks.

The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, relying heavily on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R v. Schmidt, which held that the Milk Act applies to private operations and that there is no constitutional right to sell unpasteurized milk products.

The Court found no violation of s. 7 Charter rights and confirmed the Defendant's guilt on both charges.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application intended to facilitate residential development by redefining wetland and hazard zones.

The parties reached a settlement proposal that significantly reduced the development footprint and provided appropriate setbacks to natural heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, County of Grey Official Plan, and the Town's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended Zoning By-law.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to redefine wetland and hazard zones and establish development envelopes.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission on a development permit for a residential addition.

The condition required the appellant to enter into an agreement on title prohibiting more than one dwelling unit on the property.

The Hearing Officer found that the condition was speculative, redundant, and an overreach, as secondary dwelling units are already prohibited under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Minister of Natural Resources adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendation and directed the issuance of the permit without the disputed condition.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following case management conferences regarding appeals by the applicant.

The appeals relate to the proposed establishment of a new aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit) in the Town of Caledon.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the hearing scheduled to commence in October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following Case Management Conferences regarding appeals by Blueland Farms Ltd. The appeals relate to a proposed aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit) in Caledon.

The Tribunal established the procedural rules, hearing dates, and the Issues List for the hearing scheduled to commence in October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. regarding the proposed expansion of the Nelson Quarry in Burlington.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 60-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2025.

The defendant, Christopher Rocke, brought a motion for recusal of Justice of the Peace L. Crawford, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegations stemmed from an interaction with the Crown at the outset of the trial, the judge's management of court procedure, perceived inexperience, and an alleged institutional bias due to the judge's former profession and government employment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to provide evidence to support a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the application was not timely.

The judge affirmed the court's authority to control proceedings and manage trials efficiently.

At a Case Management Conference regarding proposed aggregate extraction operations, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered whether multiple appeals under the Planning Act, Aggregate Resources Act, and Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act should be consolidated or heard together.

The Tribunal ordered that the matters be heard together pursuant to section 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, finding it to be a fair and efficient way to deal with all issues without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal also scheduled future hearing dates and directed ongoing Indigenous consultation.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application.

The parties indicated that settlement was unlikely but discussions would continue.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a one-day video hearing for October 25, 2024.

The City of Burlington brought a motion for directions to amend a Notice of Undertaking filed by Nelson Aggregate Co. regarding the proposed expansion of the Burlington Quarry.

The City sought to compel the consolidation of potential future hearings for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW), an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), and an Aggregate Resources Act site plan amendment into the current consolidated proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the City's request to include the site plan amendment, finding no indication that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry intended to propose amendments that would trigger a hearing.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion under O. Reg. 351/21 to defer the PTTW and ECA applications until it is determined whether hearings will actually be required for those approvals, noting that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks typically requires land use approvals to be in place before issuing such permits.

The Tribunal confirmed the consolidation of the five existing appeals.