Gregory F. Stewart

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment implementing its updated Official Plan.

At the second Case Management Conference, the appellant advised he was seeking new counsel and had retained a planner.

The parties indicated potential to resolve the appeal for most of the properties and agreed that a third Case Management Conference was necessary to finalize the scope of the appeal, the Procedural Order, and the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file the finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a Procedural Order governing the procedures leading up to a hearing for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued an Amended Procedural Order to revise the procedural timelines.

The appellants appealed an order giving directions regarding the distribution of funds remaining in trust after the sale of Driftwood Beach Park Limited's assets and the reimbursement of funds by certain appellants to the company.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s determinations, including findings regarding the purchase and customization of a 2022 Honda, salary for James Kemp, and compensation for Ms. Kemp.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing for a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing May 4, 2026.

The order sets out the schedule for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated comprehensive zoning by-law amendment that introduced a new Natural Environment zone on his properties, arguing it did not permit ongoing agricultural uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's properties.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal scoped accordingly and deemed the unappealed portions of the zoning by-law to have come into force on the day it was passed, pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and Saugeen First Nation (SON) to costs from Ontario following a partially successful appeal.

SON had sued Canada and Ontario for Aboriginal title to submerged lands and for breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal allowed SON’s title claim appeal to the extent of remitting the matter back to the trial judge for a determination on a more limited portion of the claim area, while dismissing their treaty claim appeal.

SON had settled costs with Canada and was not seeking costs for the treaty claim.

The court found that SON was the overall successful party on the title claim appeal against Ontario, as they obtained the relief sought (remittal), and Ontario's position was to dismiss the claim entirely.

The quantum of costs sought by SON was deemed reasonable given the complexity and public importance of the appeal.

The appellants, the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Saugeen First Nation, appealed the dismissal of their claim for Aboriginal title to submerged lands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, and their claim for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Crown's failure to protect their lands from settler encroachment under Treaty 45 ½.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the broad Aboriginal title claim but remitted the matter to determine if title could be established over a smaller, specific area.

The Court affirmed that the Crown breached its treaty promise and the honour of the Crown by failing to diligently protect the lands, but agreed no fiduciary duty was owed.

The Court also allowed the municipalities' cross-appeal, dismissing the action against them on the basis that a constructive trust over municipal roads was an inappropriate remedy.

The applicant appealed a condition of a provisional consent to sever a surplus farm dwelling that limited the severed parcel to 3.5 acres.

The applicant sought a 10-acre parcel to operate a market gardening business.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that a 10-acre severance would contribute to the fragmentation of agricultural land and that the 3.5-acre limit was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was dismissed and the conditions remained in effect.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) brought two actions against the Crown and several municipalities.

In the Aboriginal Title Claim, SON sought a novel declaration of Aboriginal title to a large portion of the submerged lands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay.

The court dismissed this claim, finding that while SON had a spiritual connection to the water and relied on fishing, they did not establish sufficient and exclusive physical occupation of the claimed submerged lands at the time of British sovereignty in 1763.

In the Treaty Claim, SON alleged that the Crown breached Treaty 45½ (1836) by failing to protect the Bruce Peninsula from settler encroachments, and breached duties during the negotiation of Treaty 72 (1854).

The court found that the Crown breached the honour of the Crown by failing to diligently fulfill its promise to protect the Peninsula from squatters, and by inappropriate conduct during the August 1854 treaty negotiations.

However, the court dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

The court also declared that Treaty 72 did not extinguish SON's harvesting rights, which continue on unsold lands and on sold lands where the use is not incompatible with harvesting.

Property-specific remedies and defences were deferred to a second phase of the trial.

The applicant sought a prescriptive easement over a sand path on the respondents' land to access the beach from his cottage.

The respondents opposed, arguing the easement was not reasonably necessary and that their predecessors in title were unaware of the path's use.

The court found that the path was reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the cottage property and that the applicant had proven 20 years of continuous, open, and uninterrupted use.

The motion for a prescriptive easement was granted.

The owners of a designated heritage property requested that the Town of Goderich repeal the designating by-law.

The Town Council agreed and issued a notice of intention to repeal.

Two residents objected, and the matter was referred to the Conservation Review Board.

The Board found that the property retained its heritage attributes and that the Town Council erred in failing to consider the heritage designation criteria when deciding to repeal the by-law.

The Board recommended that the designating by-law not be repealed.

At trial, the defendants sought a further adjournment after a history of previous adjournments and their failure to attend court.

The court acknowledged the difficulty faced by defence counsel but noted that the defendants were not present for trial and that the conditions set out in an earlier endorsement had been met.

As a result, the court dismissed the defence and counterclaim and directed that the action proceed as an undefended matter.

The plaintiff was permitted to requisition default judgment through the Registrar pursuant to the Rules.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising from the purchase of a defective wind turbine from one of the defendant corporations.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against two affiliated corporations, arguing they were separate legal entities.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' claims regarding lifting the corporate veil, agency, and pure economic loss for negligent manufacture raised genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly given the conflicting evidence on the degree of control and integration among the corporations.

Following interim motions where the respondent was largely successful in obtaining spousal and child support, the court determined costs.

Both parties were penalized for unreasonable behaviour: the respondent for failing to provide timely educational disclosure for an adult child, and the applicant for unilaterally removing the respondent from his benefits plan.

The applicant was ordered to pay net costs of $4,000.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide ongoing educational disclosure for the children as a condition of receiving child support.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment in employment and a failure by the respondents to properly investigate.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondents requested that the two applications be heard together and that the hearing be adjourned.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to overlapping facts and the risk of inconsistent findings, and granted the adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the exclusion of witnesses but exempted the respondents' advisor, provided he testify first.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that intended testimony regarding one applicant spreading rumours was inadmissible character evidence.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $250,000 personal guarantee provided by the defendant in support of a corporate credit facility.

The defendant argued that several payments made by a corporation he controlled should reduce his liability under the guarantee based on an alleged understanding with the lender.

The court applied the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 and the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The documentary evidence, including multiple forbearance agreements acknowledging the validity of the guarantee, contradicted the defendant’s asserted understanding.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to add several municipalities as respondents and to compel disclosure of closed Board meeting minutes and a personnel file.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the municipalities, noting they comprise the unincorporated Mid-Huron Landfill Site Board and their addition ensures any award is enforceable.

The Tribunal declined to order disclosure of the disputed documents at this stage, requiring the applicant to establish an evidentiary foundation for relevance at the hearing on the merits.

The appellant purchased land to operate a large hog farm and applied for a building permit for a barn and manure storage facility.

Shortly after, the respondent municipality passed an interim control by-law prohibiting such facilities, and the building permit was refused.

The appellant applied to the Superior Court to quash the by-law and appeal the permit refusal, both of which were dismissed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction to hear the matters but dismissed the building permit appeal, finding the appellant had not met all requirements before the by-law passed.

The court remitted the by-law application back to the motions judge to determine whether the court should defer to the Ontario Municipal Board's concurrent jurisdiction.

The applicants, neighbouring farmers, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's two newly constructed segregated early weaning swine barns and manure pit.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicants were aggrieved by the odour, which constituted a disturbance.

The Board determined that the respondent's operation was not a normal farm practice because the barns were not located in accordance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS II) guidelines of the Agricultural Code of Practice, which was the accepted standard in the region.

The Board ordered the respondent to install 60-foot exhaust stacks to disperse the odour and bring the operation into compliance with normal farm practices.

The union and the employer filed applications regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning their pay equity plan.

The parties had negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement in 1990 which they intended to serve as a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal found that the agreement failed to comply with the Pay Equity Act in several fundamental ways, including failing to consider benefits in job rates, failing to directly compare female to male job classes, and using pay equity adjustments for both male and female job classes to achieve internal equity.

The Tribunal concluded that no valid pay equity plan existed and ordered the parties to negotiate a new plan in compliance with the Act.