William Heywood

The Manors of Belfountain Corp. appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision, while the Town and a community organization appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the same residential project.

The Tribunal considered extensive expert evidence on hydrogeology, stormwater management, and natural heritage, particularly concerning potential impacts on local groundwater, private wells, and sensitive Brook Trout habitat.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed phased development, supported by advanced wastewater treatment and rigorous monitoring conditions, would not cause negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal confirmed the development permit and approved the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to agreed conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that declared the respondents had a right of way "in, over, and upon" a portion of the appellant's property, including the right to maintain drainage infrastructure (a catch basin and lateral pipe).

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate assistance and by improperly interpreting the scope of the easement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no procedural unfairness and that the drainage infrastructure constituted an ancillary right reasonably necessary to the use and enjoyment of the right of way.

The plaintiffs and defendant owned adjacent properties sharing a laneway subject to a right of way.

The plaintiffs relied on a catchbasin in the laneway for drainage.

The defendant's partner poured a concrete pad over the catchbasin, rendering it inoperable and causing significant flooding to the plaintiffs' property, which prevented them from renting out apartments.

The court found that the right of way included the right to use and maintain the drainage infrastructure.

The defendant's actions constituted a substantial interference and a nuisance.

The court ordered the reinstatement of the catchbasin, enjoined the defendant from blocking the laneway, and awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 in damages for lost rental income and repair costs.