Chris Proctor

The appellants brought a motion for costs against an added party, Mr. Earl, seeking $42,646.65 for costs incurred due to a motion to extend time for filing an expert witness statement and for hearing costs.

The appellants argued Mr. Earl's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous, citing his expert's failure to adhere to the procedural order and his raising of a stormwater management issue not shared by the approval authorities.

The Tribunal found that while the expert's unresponsiveness and failure to meet deadlines was problematic, it did not result in significant delay or prejudice.

The Tribunal concluded Mr. Earl's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award, and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Township and County to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a 16-lot residential development.

The appellants reached a settlement with the municipalities, resolving concerns about municipal water supply.

A neighbouring property owner maintained an objection regarding potential stormwater management impacts on his property.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion by the neighbour to extend the time for filing an expert witness statement due to non-compliance with the Procedural Order.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the appellants, the Tribunal found that the proposed stormwater management plan was appropriate and would likely improve existing conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan in principle, subject to finalization.