Erroll G. Treslan

The decision concerns whether withdrawals made by the respondent, Laura Giacomelli, from joint bank accounts shared with her late mother, Giuliana Buffa, constituted valid inter vivos gifts or were subject to a resulting trust in favour of the estate.

The court found that the respondent had rebutted the presumption of resulting trust and that the gifts were valid, not the result of undue influence or unconscionable procurement.

The application for a declaration and tracing order was dismissed.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission proposed an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to allow for the development of on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas, among other changes.

Hearing Officers were appointed to receive representations on the proposed amendment.

The Hearing Officers recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments, finding that they meet the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Plan, are consistent with Provincial policies, and are justified.

The amendments include allowing agricultural uses in Earth Science ANSIs, permitting expansions to existing agricultural buildings in key natural heritage features, allowing maple sugar harvesting in the Escarpment Natural Area, and permitting agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses outside of prime agricultural areas in the Escarpment Protection Area.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a 37-unit residential farm co-operative.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 7, 2025, and established the procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements, expert meetings, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The moving parties sought party status in an appeal regarding a Draft Plan of Condominium, arguing they had a 50% ownership interest in the subject property and that their involvement was necessary to address servicing agreements.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the moving parties' concerns related to private contractual and ownership disputes rather than land use planning merits.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that private agreements are outside its jurisdiction and the moving parties failed to articulate specific planning concerns.

The Tribunal also consolidated the zoning and draft plan appeals and scheduled a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming five-day hearing regarding appeals of a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The appeals relate to the creation of 12 lots with commercial lodges and a future development block.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The court considered a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal case.

The enforceability of the "with cause" and "without cause" termination provisions in the plaintiff's employment contract was at issue.

The court found both provisions unenforceable because they contravened the Employment Standards Act, 2000, following the reasoning in Dufault v. The Corporation of the Township of Ignace and Perretta v. Rand A Technology Corporation.

As a result, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and a further hearing was ordered to determine damages.

This case involved a trial of issues arising from a motion for directions brought by the Estate of John Duncan Maltman against his daughter, Jacquelyne Playter.

The Estate sought disgorgement of funds from a non-registered TD investment account and a TD chequing account, both jointly held by the deceased and Ms. Playter.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust.

It was determined that the deceased intended Ms. Playter to beneficially receive the proceeds of the joint investment account by right of survivorship, based on clear contemporaneous banking documents and witness testimony.

Regarding the chequing account, Ms. Playter acknowledged beneficial ownership by the deceased but sought to deduct costs for her husband's services in preparing the deceased's home for sale.

The court allowed a partial deduction for these services.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Condominium.

A motion for party status and an adjournment was brought by non-appellants.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the motion because a finalized Issues List had not yet been submitted, which is required to determine if the non-appellants can shelter under existing issues as mandated by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The parties were directed to submit a revised Issues List.

The applicant, Kristy Rae Wheeler, sought costs following her successful motion to remove Allen Wilford and A. Wilford Professional Corporation as counsel for James Bruce MacAulay due to a conflict of interest, and to appoint s. 3 counsel for Mr. MacAulay.

The court found that Mr. Wilford's decision to defend the motion, despite a clear conflict, caused unnecessary costs.

The court awarded Ms. Wheeler partial indemnity costs, with a portion payable personally by Mr. Wilford and the remainder by Mr. MacAulay, as the motion also benefited Mr. MacAulay.

This was the first Case Management Conference concerning appeals by The Blue Meadows Inc. against the Town of The Blue Mountains and Grey County for failing to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to three others.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The County of Grey appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent for a lot boundary adjustment without a requested road-widening condition.

The applicant sought to convey an existing driveway to an abutting parcel.

The County requested a 5.182-metre road widening along Alfred Street West, consistent with its Official Plan policies for future growth and infrastructure expansion.

The Tribunal adopted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the road widening was required and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed, and provisional consent was granted subject to the road widening condition.

The appellant appealed the conditions of draft plan of subdivision and condominium approvals for a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaging in settlement discussions and a Tribunal-facilitated mediation assessment to resolve remaining technical issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider the status of the settlement discussions and potentially convert it to a settlement hearing.

The applicant sought to terminate child support for three adult children.

The court found that one child (Sommer) was no longer a child of the marriage as of June 2019, and another (Dawson) was no longer a child of the marriage as of when he started full-time work in 2021 (date to be determined).

However, the third child (Hailie) remained a child of the marriage due to health issues and a temporary hiatus from studies.

The court varied the interim support order accordingly, but stayed the order regarding Dawson until the applicant complied with a previous financial disclosure order.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The applicants appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications sought to increase the permitted residential units from 609 to 659 for a development on the subject lands.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised plans and conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a small-scale rural commercial shop for metal works on the applicant's property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding species at risk, minimum distance separation (MDS) from his chicken coop, and aggregate resources.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal was an on-farm diversified use consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal found the appellant's chicken coop was built strategically to thwart development rather than for bona fide agricultural purposes, and thus MDS formulae did not apply from that structure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a 3.6-hectare rural lot from a 29-hectare parcel.

The municipality argued that the Official Plan permitted a maximum of four lots based on the original crown survey, which had already been reached, and raised concerns about strategic aggregate resources.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan allowed for pro-rating up to permit five lots, and that evidence showed the legacy aggregate site had been rehabilitated.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, subsequently reopening the matter to attach appropriate conditions regarding entrance permits, parkland dedication, and letters of comfort for private services, while rejecting the municipality's request to require a zoning by-law amendment.

The applicants appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a 3.6-hectare rural lot from a 29-hectare parcel.

The municipality argued that the maximum lot density of four lots, based on the original crown survey, had already been reached and raised concerns about strategic aggregate resources.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan permitted pro-rating up to allow five lots, that the aggregate resources had been previously depleted and rehabilitated, and that the application was consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment application to permit the re-severance of six lots that had inadvertently merged in title.

The parties reached a settlement after addressing the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority's concerns regarding natural hazards and heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Official Plan to permit the severance subject to conditions.

The applicant sought interim child support for her son from a previous relationship, interim spousal support, and orders regarding access exchanges.

The court found a prima facie case that the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the stepson and ordered him to pay full Guidelines child support for all three children.

The court also found the applicant entitled to interim spousal support based on need and compensatory grounds.

Due to conflict involving the respondent's mother, access exchanges were ordered to occur at a neutral location, with adjusted times for winter driving conditions.

The applicants sought orders regarding an easement for pedestrian passage over the respondents' property, including the permanent removal or opening of a gate, prevention of blocking the easement, prevention of moving personal property from a public beach, and clarification of guest rights.

The court largely dismissed the application, finding that the gate did not substantially interfere with the easement and that the applicants had no legal right to store chattels on the public beach.

However, the court granted a varied order preventing the respondents from blocking the easement for the applicants and specific categories of guests, and clarified the scope of the easement accordingly.

Costs were presumed in favour of the respondents.