John Stewart

The appellant sought a Zoning By-law Amendment to retroactively legalize unauthorized development on a waterfront property, including additions to a seasonal cottage and various decks within the prescribed 30-metre shoreline setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested exceptions failed to conform with the Township Official Plan's strict shoreline setback policies designed to protect the ecological and heritage features of the Rideau Canal waterway.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's ecological evidence due to factual misapprehensions and accepted the municipality's evidence that the unauthorized development likely had an unacceptable negative impact on the environment and Species at Risk habitat.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a permit for demolition and new construction under the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The applicants proposed to replace five existing dwellings with two low-rise apartment buildings.

The City and a residents' association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character of the area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, with minor alterations to scale, articulation, and landscaping, was suitable and compatible with the cultural heritage landscape.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the City to issue the permits subject to finalization of plans regarding stepbacks, facade variations, and greenspace enhancements.

The applicant sought an order permitting removal of a boundary tree damaged in the 2013 ice storm after arborists reported it was unsafe and a branch had already damaged a neighbouring property.

The respondent opposed removal and relied on a statutory consent requirement under the Forestry Act.

The court held that s. 10(3) of the Forestry Act did not apply as between co-owners of a boundary tree and that the dispute was governed by the common law of nuisance.

Because the tree presented a patent and continuing danger, the respondent was obliged to abate the nuisance and was ordered not to interfere with removal and to pay half the removal costs.