Brad Baker

The applicant appealed the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and nine consent to sever applications to create 10 residential lots.

The applicant and the township reached a settlement, but neighboring property owners opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to provincial and local planning policies regarding natural heritage and lot creation outside settlement areas.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the development appropriately protected ecological systems, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and granting provisional consents subject to conditions.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to stay a decision of the County Council lifting a stop work order and confirming a special permit that allowed the respondent landowner to cut trees on its property.

The applicant argued that the County Council denied it natural justice by accepting reply evidence without allowing rebuttal and by allowing two councillors who had not heard the evidence to vote.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding natural justice, as the reply evidence was responsive to unexpected assertions and the two mistakenly recorded votes made no mathematical difference to the outcome.

The court also found the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.