John Coulter

The Niagara Escarpment Commission approved a development permit for 2222699 Ontario Inc. to host water-skiing competitions on a pond in a former gravel pit.

Several neighbours, the Town of Mono, and the applicant appealed the decision.

The Hearing Officers found that the originally approved development of four 2.5-day events was too intensive and not a permitted use in the Escarpment Protection Area.

However, they recommended approval of a redefined proposal for two events per year with a maximum of 40 competitors, subject to strict conditions including a three-year review period, noise controls, and a fuel contingency plan.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry accepted the recommendation and directed the issuance of the modified permit.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

A condominium unit owner brought an application seeking enforcement of condominium by-laws and damages after persistent excessive noise from an upstairs unit used as a dance studio interfered with quiet enjoyment.

Despite numerous complaints and security confirmations of excessive noise, the condominium corporation failed to enforce its own rules requiring noise abatement.

The court held that the corporation breached its statutory duty under s. 17(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 to ensure compliance with its by-laws and that its conduct amounted to oppression under s. 135 by unfairly disregarding the applicant’s interests.

The court ordered the corporation to take reasonable steps to enforce its rules against the offending unit and restore quiet enjoyment.

The applicant was awarded special damages for relocation expenses caused by the ongoing disturbance.

The landlord sought an interim injunction against a tenant operating a restaurant and nightclub alleged to be producing excessive noise that interfered with other commercial tenants in the building.

Evidence showed that noise levels regularly exceeded the maximum permitted level established in a pre-opening Noise Plan and municipal by-law enforcement had issued citations.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (A.G.), the court found a serious issue to be tried, a risk of irreparable harm to the landlord through loss of current and prospective tenants, and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief.

The court ordered the tenant to limit sound output to 91 dBA and to facilitate installation of a noise monitoring system pending the full injunction hearing.

The applicant applied for an additional licensed area for an outdoor patio with a capacity of 48 persons.

Local residents and the condominium corporation objected to the application, citing significant noise issues from the existing indoor premises and concerns that a patio would exacerbate the problem.

The Board heard evidence from acoustic experts for both sides and reviewed the history of noise mitigation efforts by the applicant.

The Board found that the objectors did not meet their onus to demonstrate that issuing the licence would not be in the public interest.

The application was approved subject to strict conditions, including no music on the patio, mandatory security personnel, and restricted hours for the sale and service of alcohol.