2 total
Holding provision requiring realignment of access easement to landlocked neighbouring property upheld as good planning.
Appeals were brought against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in Cambridge.
The applicant appealed a Holding Provision in the ZBA that required the realignment of an existing access easement to provide access to an abutting landlocked property.
A neighbouring property owner appealed both instruments, arguing they were premature until interconnected access was secured in the OPA.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, finding that the Holding Provision was an appropriate use of section 36 of the Planning Act, supported by the Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest by ensuring safe, two-way interconnected access.
The Tribunal declined to modify the OPA, concluding the Holding Provision sufficiently addressed the access issue.
The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion in a slip and fall action.
The defendant Church brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a slip and fall claim by the plaintiff, who suffered injuries in the Church's icy parking lot.
The Church argued it had a reasonable winter maintenance system and that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk.
The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the Church breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and whether the plaintiff's actions constituted a willing assumption of risk under the narrow interpretation of the volenti doctrine.
