Demetrius Antonios Kappos

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Blue Birch Properties Inc. against the Town of the Blue Mountains for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The applicant sought to rezone the subject lands to redefine wetland and hazard zones and establish two development envelopes.

At the request of the parties, who required more time to resolve issues following a revised development proposal, the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference for September 6, 2024, to facilitate a potential settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Blue Birch Properties Inc. against the Town of the Blue Mountains for failing to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The Tribunal addressed requests for party and participant status, granting party status to the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority and the Niagara Escarpment Commission on consent.

One individual's request for party status was denied due to a lack of expert witnesses, but participant status was granted instead.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the appellant to present a revised application to the Town Council.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests to schedule a hearing and for an order for discovery.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing or order discovery, noting that Indigenous consultation with Six Nations of the Grand River was ongoing and peer reviews were not yet complete.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow time for these processes to advance.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for a proposed quarry expansion, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a 60-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal adjourned a motion by the City of Burlington to consolidate related Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals due to the late filing of motion materials, which the panel had not fully received.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to hear the adjourned motion and finalize the procedural order.

The appellants appealed their convictions for offences under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fishing Licensing Regulation, specifically concerning the interpretation of an exemption related to buying baitfish for commercial purposes without a license.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the exemption in s. 32(1) of the Regulation applies only to the general prohibition in s. 51(1) of the FWCA, not to the specific commercial baitfish prohibition in s. 31.3(1)(b) of the Regulation.

The court also rejected a due diligence/mistake of fact defence, reiterating that misinterpretation of law is not a valid defence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a consolidated hearing for related appeals, finding it premature as the Minister had not yet referred the aggregate licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for official plan amendments and licenses to permit a quarry expansion.

The City of Burlington brought a motion to consolidate related Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals.

Due to concerns raised by the Tribunal regarding the City's supporting affidavit being sworn by a law clerk, the City withdrew its motion with liberty to refile.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to finalize the procedural order and hear the refiled motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and an adjacent property owner.

Participant status was granted to two individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 2023 to allow time for related applications to be filed.

The defendants brought an application for disclosure of information related to four other land development projects, arguing it was relevant for full answer and defence, due diligence, and to demonstrate inconsistent application of environmental legislation by the Ministry.

The court determined that the materials sought were not first-party disclosure in the possession or control of the prosecution but rather third-party records held by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The court outlined the proper two-step process for a third-party production application, emphasizing the need to notify the record holder and any parties with privacy interests, and provided guidance on the Crown's duty to inquire.

The application for disclosure was not granted as first-party, but the court provided a procedural path for the defendants to pursue it as third-party production.

The appellant appealed a statement of account totaling $7,587.16 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to a cat in his daughter's care.

The cat was taken to an emergency clinic where the veterinarian recommended expensive treatment or euthanasia.

When the daughter could not afford treatment and was refused permission to take the cat home, the cat was treated and later boarded by AWS.

The Animal Care Review Board found that only the initial emergency assessment costs of $1,186.16 were reasonable and necessary, as the subsequent treatment and boarding were pursued despite the daughter's inability to pay and the initial option of humane euthanasia.

The statement of account was varied accordingly.

The defendant, George Valtoudis, was charged with obstructing an inspector from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), a strict liability offence under the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001.

The court found that the prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant raised the affirmative defences of due diligence and reasonable mistake of fact, claiming he did not know the person was an OMAFRA inspector.

The court rejected these defences, finding that the defendant knew or ought to have known the inspector's identity and was not duly diligent.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to renovate an existing accessory building into a washroom facility for an on-farm event venue.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal conformed with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision to conditionally approve the development permit.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal approved the issues proposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, with an amendment to include water quality and quantity.

The Tribunal struck several issues proposed by the appellant, finding that concerns regarding the need for a site visit, the applicant's past conduct, and the need for an occupancy permit were not substantive issues for adjudication under the applicable legislation.

A procedural order was issued and a one-day video hearing was scheduled.

The defendant was charged under the Provincial Offences Act with operating a milk plant without a licence contrary to section 15(1) of the Milk Act.

The defendant admitted to processing and selling raw milk and milk products to customers who signed waivers, arguing his operation was private and exempt from public welfare legislation.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the Milk Act is public welfare legislation designed to protect public health, which cannot be contracted out of through private agreements.

The defendant was found guilty.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for 195 Wellington Street South.

Following an adjournment due to COVID-19, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had worked toward resolving their issues and requested a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing by video for September 28, 2021, and issued directions for the filing of settlement materials.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct a sideroad from seasonal to year-round use.

During a pre-hearing conference, the Township of Clearview requested a six-month adjournment because the proposed road work would encroach into wetland areas, requiring an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

All parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officers granted the adjournment and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates to allow the amendment process to take place.

The appellants, a truck driver and a trucking company, were convicted of possessing invasive fish without a licence after entering Canada with shipments of live invasive fish.

The summary conviction appeal judge ordered a new trial for the corporate appellant on the issue of identity and varied the driver's sentence.

Both appellants sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The corporate appellant argued the appeal judge should have entered an acquittal based on an unreasonable verdict, while the driver argued the courts below erred in assessing his due diligence defence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal for both, finding no errors of law or issues of general importance.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals from the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct 26/27 Sideroad.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, including dates for the continuation of the pre-hearing conference, motions, and the main hearing, as well as requirements for witness lists, expert meetings, and the exchange of evidence.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit for road reconstruction, several individuals and organizations requested party, participant, or presenter status.

The Hearing Officers granted the requests, finding that the applicants met the respective requirements under the Rules of Practice, as their interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing and they had a genuine interest in the subject matter.