Garett Schromm

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3, which adds the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

SDLP 1887 Orleans Limited requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and a willingness to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation if necessary.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 26, 2023.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Philip Comeau regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a four-storey residential building.

The City argued that the Notice of Appeal failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds and did not explain how the by-law failed to conform with the Official Plan, as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the statutory requirements and that it lacked the discretionary authority to extend the appeal period or allow the appellant to supplement the reasons after the deadline.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The National Capital Commission appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a diplomatic precinct and federal park.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments had regard to matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the amendments.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance for a reduced interior side yard setback for a proposed new dwelling, filed concurrently with a consent application to subdivide the property.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance, representing a 0.59-metre difference from the zoning by-law requirement, met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the City, which did not oppose the variance, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Upper Hunt Club Community Association against the City's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a residential care facility.

The parties resolved most of the draft Procedural Order but disputed four items on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled on the contested issues, striking speculative and redundant language, finalized the Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that upheld an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning approved by the City of Ottawa.

The amendments permitted the development of a warehouse and e-commerce centre on lands adjacent to Highway 416.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no extricable error of law of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant applied to remove conditions on its liquor licence that restricted live/amplified music and the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its rooftop patio.

The Registrar issued a Proposal to refuse the removal, citing insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had established a change in circumstances through a change in ownership and business model, physical alterations to reduce noise, a change in the competitive environment, and increased community support.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out its proposal, effectively removing the conditions.

Following a hearing regarding a liquor licence application, the appellant brought a motion for costs against two community groups that had been granted added party status.

The appellant argued the added parties' conduct was unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the conduct of all parties was respectful throughout the proceeding and that advocating for a position, even erroneously, does not constitute unreasonable conduct under Rule 19.

The Tribunal emphasized that significant leeway must be given to self-represented parties to maintain accessibility and fairness.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a hair salon and restaurant.

Local residents and community associations objected, raising concerns about noise, crime, and the proliferation of nightclubs in the area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, as the concerns related to the general area rather than the specific establishment.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions restricting patio music after 9:00 p.m. and requiring signage asking patrons to respect neighbours.

The appellant requested to bring a motion for costs following the conclusion of the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal issued an order setting the timetable for the parties to serve and file their written submissions, evidence, and case law regarding the costs motion.

The plaintiffs, representing the estate of a deceased real estate developer, brought a motion for further documentary discovery from the defendants, representing the estate of his deceased business partner.

The dispute centered on the calculation of a 'net profit share' under a 2003 agreement.

The plaintiffs sought extensive financial records to challenge the defendants' auditor's valuation, which found a net loss.

Applying the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Master ordered partial production of the requested documents, limiting the scope to the specific project in dispute rather than all related projects.

The defendant vendor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff purchaser's action for the return of a $50,000 deposit.

The plaintiff had failed to close a commercial real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the contract clearly characterized the funds as a deposit, which at common law is forfeited upon the purchaser's breach.

The court also held that the plaintiff could not establish an entitlement to relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was proportional to the expected losses and its retention was not unconscionable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy under s. 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, on the basis that she occupied a superintendent's premises.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by refusing to hear certain evidence, reversing the burden of proof, and finding the informal arrangement justified termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law and noting that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after the employer reorganized its transportation department and reassigned her from an operational engineering role to a largely administrative position while maintaining the same salary and title.

The court applied the constructive dismissal framework from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission and assessed whether a reasonable person would view the changes as substantially altering essential terms of employment.

It found that the reassignment fundamentally changed the nature and quality of the plaintiff’s duties from technical operational work to administrative functions, effectively eliminating the role she had performed for decades.

The court concluded that the employer’s unilateral change amounted to constructive dismissal.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 26 months’ reasonable notice and rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate.

Following settlement of a contempt motion relating to alleged breach of a prior court order governing shared use of a laneway between neighbouring commercial properties, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving parties argued they were the successful party because the settlement resulted in variations to the earlier order consistent with their requested relief.

The responding parties contended that no contempt finding was made and that costs should either be in the cause or not awarded.

The court held the moving parties were successful because the relief obtained reflected the purpose of the motion and addressed the alleged non‑compliance with the prior order.

However, the court found the bill of costs excessive and fixed costs at $11,000 all‑inclusive, payable forthwith.