Eric Gillespie

The respondents sought costs following the dismissal of the applicants' normal farm practices application.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings, including repeatedly raising decided issues, making unfounded allegations of bias, and filing excessive and irrelevant documentation, was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Board ordered the applicants to pay $3,933.25 in costs for a Rule 8 motion and directed further submissions to determine the quantum of costs for the merits hearing.

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 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.

The appellants appealed a final Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $1,431,180.00 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of 229 dogs removed from their properties.

The Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were incurred and reasonable, as the $20.00 per dog per day rate was significantly less than the actual boarding costs.

The appellants failed to prove that the dogs were not provided with adequate care, that the amounts were inappropriate, or that the SOA should be varied due to financial hardship.

The Board confirmed the final SOA in full.

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.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment to permit a quarry operation.

At the commencement of the hearing, a party brought a last-minute motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the ownership of the proposed haul route was in dispute and the subject of a newly commenced Superior Court action.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal due to the motion's late service but found it could not proceed with the hearing.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter, noting that proceeding would require determining private property rights outside its jurisdiction, could result in a moot order, and might contradict a previous Divisional Court ruling regarding the feasibility of the haul route.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to grant a development permit.

The parties were unable to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on October 21, 2024, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal, acting as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office, held Case Management Conferences regarding appeals of a development permit granted by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The parties discussed narrowing issues and possible settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 17, 2024, to determine the pathway forward.

Trent Lakes Concerned Citizens (TLCC) brought a motion under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act to dismiss an appeal by Dewdney Mountain Farms Limited (DMF) regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a proposed quarry.

TLCC argued that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because the proposed haul route included a 'forced road' that could not be widened to accommodate necessary noise mitigation measures.

The Tribunal found that the notice of appeal disclosed genuine and legitimate planning reasons.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence regarding the road's status, width, and potential for modification required full consideration at a hearing on the merits, and therefore dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-storey supportive housing apartment building for people leaving homelessness on a site currently occupied by a seniors' apartment building.

The appellants argued the new development would be incompatible with the existing seniors' residence and sought to restrict the new building's occupancy to senior citizens.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was compatible with the existing building and that restricting occupancy by age would be inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and human rights principles.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicants requested a review of a costs decision that ordered them to pay $40,000 to the respondents.

They alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel member who made the costs decision concurrently sat as a co-panelist on a different tribunal with a senior partner of the law firm representing the respondents.

The Board found that this connection created a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the respondents were technically clients of the co-panelist's law firm.

The request for review was granted, and a new costs hearing before a full panel was ordered.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-storey apartment building for affordable rental and supportive housing.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals on consent and granted non-appellant party status to Voices of Willowdale Inc. A three-day video hearing was scheduled to consider the merits of the appeals, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed the removal of his animals and several Statements of Account for their care.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider his evidence and case law, and made erroneous findings of fact.

The Board dismissed the request, finding it had considered the evidence and law but found them irrelevant or distinguishable, and that any factual errors would not have changed the outcome.

The Appellant appealed eight Notices of Decision to Keep an Animal in Care and seven Statements of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after various exotic and domestic animals were removed from the Appellant's zoo.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals had been kept in conditions causing distress, including inadequate housing, lack of hoof care, and insufficient human interaction for primates.

The Board concluded that returning the animals would place them back in distress due to the Appellant's failure to demonstrate a proactive plan for adequate care.

The Board also confirmed the Statements of Account totaling $105,059.35, finding the costs for boarding and veterinary care to be reasonable and necessary.

The County of Wellington submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application, approved by the City of Guelph, to permit the adaptive reuse of an existing building for transitional housing with supports.

The appellant appealed the approval, raising concerns about compatibility with the existing community, access to open space, and the suitability of the building without detailed floorplans.

The Tribunal found that the proposal would not create substantial land use compatibility issues, that access to open space on retained lands would continue, and that detailed interior floorplans were not required at the zoning stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to amend the by-law to reflect the approved maximum density of 28 bedrooms, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for over $1.1 million relating to the removal and care of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the charges reflect actual and reasonable costs for necessaries.

The Board varied the transportation and veterinary costs to $Nil, finding that transportation for removal is not a necessary, the care during transport fell below prescribed standards, and the respondent failed to prove the veterinary costs did not arise from its own care.

The boarding costs were reduced to $505,760 based on a reasonable daily rate of $20 per dog, resulting in a total varied Statement of Account of $505,760.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, which resulted in the removal of several exotic and domestic animals from his zoo.

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals were kept in a barn with inadequate ventilation, high ammonia levels, and poor sanitary conditions.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the animals were in distress as defined by the Act and that the Notice of Removal was properly issued based on a veterinarian's written advice that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The City of Ottawa and Shepherds of Good Hope brought motions to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an eight-storey supportive housing development.

The Tribunal allowed the City's motion, finding the appellant failed to properly serve the notice of appeal as required by s. 34(19) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also allowed the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 34(25), concluding the notice of appeal failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with applicable policies and failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

In an appeal of a $1.1 million Statement of Account related to the removal of over 200 dogs, the parties brought several preliminary motions.

The Board granted the Respondent's motion to call more than three expert witnesses, finding that the treating veterinarians were 'participant experts' exempt from strict expert report rules.

The Board also granted the Appellants' motions for further disclosure regarding the removal and care of the dogs, and permitted the Appellants' veterinarian to inspect the remaining living dogs subject to specific conditions.

The appellant appealed two zoning by-law amendments passed by the City of Ottawa to regulate short-term rentals (STRs).

The appellant argued that 'dedicated' STRs (without a principal residence requirement) should be allowed in mixed-use zones that permit both hotels and dwellings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that dedicated STRs are commercial uses that negatively affect housing supply and affordability, and are incompatible with residential functions even in mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal also found that the by-laws do not unlawfully restrict legal non-conforming rights and declined to recognize specific properties as legal non-conforming due to insufficient evidence.

A request by the City to extend the temporary use period of the by-law was also denied.