Eric Davis

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision in the Town of Collingwood.

The parties provided an update on the scoping of issues and the withdrawal of certain appellants.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order and Issues List and confirmed the 25-day hearing of the merits scheduled to commence on August 8, 2022.

The applicant appealed the Town of Collingwood's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a six-storey mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable growth plans and official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the submission of final documents and resolution of an interim control by-law.

At a Case Management Conference, the applicant brought a motion on consent to consolidate its appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment with a related site plan appeal for the same property.

The Tribunal granted the motion, abridged the time for service, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to update the Tribunal on the progress of scoping and resolving issues.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

Two local residents were granted participant status on consent.

A retired land use planner requested party status to cross-examine witnesses, but the Tribunal found his participation would not assist in determining the real questions in dispute and granted him participant status instead.

Further hearing dates were scheduled.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to enlarge an existing legal non-conforming cottage.

The non-conforming status arose from having three dwellings on a single lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed enlargement was a modest intensification, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Township of Wilmot's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to sever an undeveloped parcel into two residential lots.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement contingent on determining a drainage solution.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region Official Plan, and Township Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the applications, with the order withheld until a satisfactory drainage solution is confirmed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. concerning a proposed 170-unit subdivision development.

The order establishes the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the consolidated issues list for the 25-day hearing.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a plan of subdivision for a 170-unit development.

The applicant withdrew its appeal concerning the east side of the subject lands.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize and submit the Procedural Order and Issues List by October 15, 2021.

A final Case Management Conference was scheduled for May 9, 2022, and a five-week video hearing was scheduled to commence on August 8, 2022.

The applicants sought $125,000 in costs following a successful application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the respondent municipality engaged in unreasonable conduct by shifting its position, failing to present evidence, and maligning character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the applicants' costs request, finding the municipality's conduct was not unreasonable.

The Board awarded the municipality $1,000 in costs for having to respond to the applicants' substantially meritless costs request.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval to permit a 28-unit cluster dwelling development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The Tribunal approved the amendment but withheld its final order pending the site's exemption from an Interim Control By-law related to water servicing capacity, and adjourned the site plan appeal sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. against the Town of Collingwood's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Silver Glen Condo Corporation and three individuals.

The applicant presented a descoped appeal proposal, and the Tribunal directed the provision of updated mapping.

A follow-up Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Township of Wilmot's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to sever a property to accommodate two residential lots.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the parties had reached a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing by video for September 23, 2021, and directed the filing of supporting affidavits.

The plaintiff developer brought an action against the City of Guelph seeking reimbursement for local service charges paid for road improvements as a condition of subdivision approval.

The City moved to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was an abuse of process because the developer failed to appeal the conditions to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal under the Planning Act.

The Superior Court granted the motion, finding that the developer was improperly attempting to circumvent the statutory appeal scheme and collaterally attack municipal by-laws, making it plain and obvious the claim could not succeed.

The applicants, members of the Carpenters Union, brought an application alleging that a municipal councillor breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting on a resolution supporting provincial labour law amendments.

The councillor's wife was employed by a rival union, CLAC.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to prove they brought the application within the six-week limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the councillor did not have a deemed indirect pecuniary interest because the resolution was merely a symbolic show of support over which the municipality had no jurisdiction, and any potential interest was too remote, hypothetical, and insignificant to influence his vote.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.

Following the dismissal of an application as abandoned, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The municipality sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000, while the self‑represented applicant sought costs of $880.

The court held that the municipality was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the court reduced the quantum significantly because the issues raised by the applicant were important and not frivolous, and the dispute might have been avoided had the municipality provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard before passing the resolution.

The court awarded reduced costs and disbursements in favour of the municipality.

The applicant elector brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent town councillor had a conflict of interest when he voted to approve a grant to the local Chamber of Commerce.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest because he owned a business and property in the town and was a member of the Chamber.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent did not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the grant.

The court further held that even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was exempt as being insignificant and in common with electors generally, and any contravention would have been saved as a good faith error in judgment.