Robert Clark

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a second single detached dwelling for temporary accommodation on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant claimed the new structure was a continuation of a legal non-conforming use of a former drive shed as an airplane hangar with temporary living accommodations.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the residential use lawfully existed on November 15, 2001, as required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Township Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the new structure was a second residential dwelling, which is not permitted, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the County's refusal of an application to sever an additional dwelling unit from their farm property.

The subject lands were designated as prime agricultural in the County Official Plan.

The appellants argued the severed portion had poor soil quality and was unusable for agriculture.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed consent was not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and did not conform with the County Official Plan, which restricts lot creation in prime agricultural areas to protect agricultural resources.

The Tribunal noted that concerns regarding soil quality and land designation should be addressed through an official plan amendment rather than a consent application.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a hobby farm on an undersized lot and to revise the definition of a hobby farm to be based on nutrient units rather than a strict animal count.

The Township argued the proposal amounted to a commercial farming operation unsuitable for the constrained rural lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that the proposal remains small-scale, complies with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies encouraging rural agricultural uses and local food systems.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to approve the establishment of a Muslim cemetery on 43.8 acres of prime agricultural land.

The applicant argued the cemetery was a permitted use under the zoning by-law and served a cultural need.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that establishing the cemetery was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal prioritized the provincial interest in protecting prime agricultural lands over the cultural facility provision, noting the applicant failed to provide a needs analysis or evaluate alternative locations outside prime agricultural areas as required by the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a special events venue and culinary-related activities as on-farm diversified uses.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that introduced additional regulations, including limits on temporary structure floor area, hours of operation, and amplified sound.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Oshawa's failure to approve a Site Plan Control Application for a single detached dwelling on a property located within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The City and the conservation authority argued the development should be relocated to a different part of the property to minimize impacts on significant woodlands and wildlife habitat.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the site plan, finding that the applicant's proposed location, supported by expert evidence and a Managed Forest Plan, would not adversely affect the ecological integrity of the area and represented good site plan design.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the minimum setback from a floodplain from 7.6 metres to 5.0 metres to permit the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The appellant argued the lot was too small, the proposed septic system under the driveway was inappropriate, and the development was inconsistent with the Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and City's planners that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, and finding that concerns regarding the septic system and drainage were matters to be addressed at the building permit stage.

The applicants, federal inmates, sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) refusal to reclassify them to minimum security, which prevented their transfer to lower-security institutions.

The core legal question was whether such a refusal constitutes a "deprivation of liberty" reviewable by habeas corpus.

The court, applying the principle of judicial comity and reviewing extensive jurisprudence, concluded that maintaining an existing security classification does not amount to a deprivation of liberty, as it does not impose new or additional constraints on residual liberty.

Consequently, habeas corpus was not an available remedy, and the applications were dismissed.

The Tribunal heard an appeal regarding the 'Prime Agricultural' designation of a 42.95-hectare parcel of land in the City of Kawartha Lakes' Official Plan.

The appellants argued that the lands should be designated 'Rural' based on an Agricultural Land Evaluation which found the lands consisted mostly of Class 4 soils with drainage and topography constraints.

The City argued the designation was appropriate and any changes should occur during a Municipal Comprehensive Review.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' evidence, finding no clear justification for the original 'Prime Agricultural' designation, and ordered the lands be re-designated as 'Rural'.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that changed the zoning of the adjacent property to permit its use as a tourism establishment for seasonal short-term rentals.

The appellants raised concerns regarding lot size, trespassing, parking, and environmental impacts.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was dismissed.