Richard Brady

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of official plan and zoning by-law amendments that would facilitate a medical clinic and professional office development on a property in Virgil.

The appellant, who operates a nearby medical centre, argued the amendments were inconsistent with provincial policies, would remove needed residential lands, and would negatively impact existing commercial areas.

The Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the Region's Official Plan, and conformed with the Town's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's market impact study, finding a need for the proposed medical uses and no evidence that the development would cause blight or significant adverse market impacts.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development.

During the hearing, the Tribunal made several procedural rulings, notably excluding the appellant's ecological expert witness from giving opinion evidence because her self-described role as an advocate demonstrated an inability to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan testimony.

The Tribunal also struck hearsay reports from a non-testifying expert and excluded late-filed documents.

Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement modifying the development proposal to increase environmental protection areas and adjust the residential mix.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The appellant municipality appealed a declaration that the respondent's proposed emergency youth shelter was a permitted use under the city's zoning by-law.

The applications judge found the shelter fell within the definition of a 'Community Building' because it provided social and charitable community activities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provision of sleeping accommodation alongside other services constituted a community activity, and the shelter's operations fell squarely within the charitable purposes contemplated by the by-law.