Greg Stewart

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the County of Huron on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that proposed relocating a Settlement Area onto prime agricultural lands.

The parties were unable to finalize an Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a three-day hearing on the merits, directing the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scoped Issues List in advance.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that proposed relocating 64 acres of Settlement Area onto prime agricultural lands.

The parties agreed to withdraw and amend certain issues to consolidate the Issues List.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a cannabis production facility with reduced setbacks to a community facility and residential dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a Holding Provision requiring an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling report to address odour concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a provisional consent to sever a property granted by the County of Huron.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement amending the conditions to require an easement for beach access and the transfer of an existing laneway to the Township.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended conditions reasonable and the proposed severance consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants sought consent to sever and merge properties, along with an unopened municipal road allowance, to create three non-farm residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The County approved the applications despite staff recommending denial.

The appellant appealed the approval to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed creation of non-farm residential lots in an agricultural area conflicted with the Provincial Policy Statement and the applicable Official Plans, which protect agricultural lands.

The Tribunal refused to authorize the provisional consent.

The parents and two First Nations appealed a trial decision making two First Nations children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact, erred in finding Crown wardship was the least restrictive alternative, and that the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included significant parenting deficits, developmental delays that improved in care, and the need for stability.

The court also admitted fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant a new trial or a change to the order, affirming that Crown wardship with no access remained in the children's best interests.