Anthony Usher

The appellant appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to permit an 88-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant scaled back the proposed development to 35 residential units and three detached dwellings, and revised the instruments to the satisfaction of the appellant and added party.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an expansion to an existing cottage, a new boathouse, and a new dock on an undersized island property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, subject to site plan approval.

The applicant, representing local ratepayers, brought an application to interpret a municipal zoning by-law, arguing that a deep water port facility's trans-shipment operations contravened the by-law.

The respondents argued the operations were protected as a legal non-conforming use.

The court interpreted the historical zoning by-laws and applied the framework for pre-existing uses, finding that the general historic use of the property for trans-shipment of bulk commodities had not fundamentally changed.

The court held that the current operations constituted a reasonable expansion of earlier activities and remained protected as a legal non-conforming use.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which had dismissed their appeal from a city council decision denying their proposed 91-lot residential development in a coastal wetland area.

The applicants alleged numerous errors of law, including the Board's application of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement instead of the 2005 version, its interpretation of 'negative impacts' and 'limited residential development', and procedural fairness issues regarding the admission of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the 2014 PPS, reasonably interpreted the planning policies, and that any procedural errors regarding expert evidence did not meet the test for granting leave.