Jack Winkler

The defendant was charged with fifty-six counts of unlawfully removing, injuring, or destroying Heritage trees without a permit under the Town of Ancaster By-Law No. 2000-118.

The charges arose from tree cuttings on the Golf Links property in Hamilton between July 20 and August 10, 2014.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict and a Charter delay challenge, both of which were denied.

The court found that the prosecution established a prima facie case and that the matter proceeded well within the eighteen-month threshold established by R. v. Jordan for Provincial Offences Act matters.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the defendant guilty on all fifty-six counts.

The court rejected the defendant's defenses of mistake of fact, due diligence, and officially induced error, finding that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to determine whether a permit was required before cutting the trees.

The applicants sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that their removal of trees to straighten a field line was a normal farm practice, exempting them from the municipality's Forest Conservation By-Law.

The Board found that the applicants failed to prove the tree removal was a normal farm practice, noting the clearing exceeded what was necessary to straighten the field and amounted to an attempt to clear cut a portion of the bush.

The application was dismissed.

The requesters sought a review of a Tribunal decision regarding the Holland Marsh Drainage System Canal Improvement Project, arguing that the Tribunal disregarded evidence concerning compensation for their land, immature tree crop, and fill removal, as well as the method for relocating a berm.

The Chair of the Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the requesters had not brought forward any significant new evidence and that the Tribunal had not made any material errors of law or fact.

The original decision was found to be sound and based on credible expert evidence.

The Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury initiated a major drainage works project to improve the Holland Marsh Drainage System canals and dykes.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that the allowances for land used (s. 29) and damages (s. 30) were inadequate, or that their benefit assessments were too high.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of Bonigut, Curtis, and Barlow Square, finding that the engineer's valuation of the affected lands as 'bush land' at $1,200 per acre was fair and reasonable, given the lands were in an environmental protection zone, frequently flooded, and had no development or agricultural potential.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Milleman appeal, holding that a partial municipal tax exemption for conservation lands does not exempt the property from drainage assessments.

In the Kedra appeal, the Tribunal found the engineer had erroneously valued the land as a residential building lot and ordered the allowances reduced to the bush land rate.

The Gleason appeal was resolved by minutes of settlement.