Herbert Thomas Arnold

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment application to facilitate the development of two single detached dwellings on smaller lots.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which included deeper lots, had regard for matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the Wellington County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Township was directed to amend the zoning by-law with a site-specific residential zone subject to a holding provision.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the amount of cash-in-lieu of parkland required by the respondent for a residential subdivision.

The parties requested a Tribunal-led mediation assessment.

The Tribunal approved the final draft Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The applicant appealed the amount of cash in-lieu of parkland required by the Town of Halton Hills for a 31-unit residential subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant advised it was obtaining a second appraisal of the subject property.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in the Title of Proceedings of its previous decision dated April 11, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal deleted the original Title of Proceedings and replaced it with the corrected version.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 44 to the Glen Williams Secondary Plan.

Only one appeal by 1404649 Ontario Ltd. remained active.

The parties requested additional time to consult on a settlement proposal.

The Tribunal scheduled a fifth Case Management Conference for May 15, 2024, to allow the Town of Halton Hills to seek instructions from Council and consult with the local residents' association.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the proposed development from 34 to 31 single-detached units and dedicating approximately 75% of the lands for public ownership.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conformed to the intent of the Official Plan, addressed participant concerns regarding density and traffic, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended instruments and draft plan.

The Tribunal approved a settlement resolving Phase 2 and Phase 3 of appeals concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 32 (OPA 32) for the Southwest Georgetown Lands in the Town of Halton Hills.

The settlement modifies OPA 32 to establish a secondary plan permitting approximately 9,300 dwelling units, commercial and institutional uses, and a transportation network.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 32 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modifications, and the related private official plan amendment appeals were dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 44 by the Town of Halton Hills and the Regional Municipality of Halton.

One appellant withdrew its appeal prior to the hearing.

The remaining appellants requested additional time to facilitate ongoing discussions regarding site-specific planning applications, potentially leading to a settlement or withdrawal of the appeals.

On consent, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Draft Procedural Order and scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference for September 25, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision.

The parties requested a third CMC as the municipality and region were still reviewing the applicant's third submission.

The Tribunal scheduled a third CMC for May 24, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to that date.

Mattamy brought a motion to consolidate two competing Official Plan Amendment (OPA) appeals regarding the Southwest Georgetown secondary plan, and to have its site-specific zoning and draft plan appeals heard together with the OPA appeals.

The Town brought a preliminary motion to strike the reply affidavit of Mattamy's planning expert, arguing it contained legal advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike, finding the affidavit relevant but noting it would separate the planning opinion from the advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed Mattamy's motion in its entirety, finding that hearing the site-specific appeals together with the OPA appeals would be premature, potentially prejudicial to the approval authorities, and could inappropriately invert the planning hierarchy.

The Tribunal also found no appreciable benefit to formally consolidating the two OPA appeals.

The moving party brought a motion to consolidate its appeal regarding an official plan amendment with its other appeals concerning zoning by-law and subdivision applications.

The responding party opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that the notice of motion was served only seven days before the hearing, in contravention of the mandatory 15-day requirement under Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

As the supporting affidavit provided no reason for the short service, the Tribunal declined to abridge the time and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment 44 by the Town of Halton Hills and the Regional Municipality of Halton.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a residents' association and participant status to an individual.

The Tribunal declined a request to consolidate one of the appeals with a site-specific appeal, noting that no formal motion had been brought and that pending legislative changes under Bill 23 could affect the proceedings.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to assess the impact of the new legislation once enacted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Glen Williams Estates Inc. against the Town of Halton Hills for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and a Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton and the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, and participant status to two local citizens' groups.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 13, 2023, to allow time for further application submissions and potential mediation.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Halton Hills' failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and appeals against the adopted Official Plan Amendment 32.

The Tribunal received a status update on mediation efforts concerning natural heritage issues.

The Tribunal directed revisions to the Issues List proposed by a party, finding some issues were not relevant planning matters.

The Tribunal approved the revised Issues List and issued the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-phase merit hearing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit an addition to an existing dwelling and recognize accessory structures.

The requested variances included reductions to interior side yard and front yard setbacks, and an increase in total floor area for accessory structures.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, adopting the expert planning evidence that the proposal met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and represented good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the refusal of applications for consent to sever a property into three residential lots.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the proposed minutes of settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severances conform to the applicable Official Plans, comply with the Zoning By-law, are consistent with the PPS 2020, conform to the Growth Plan 2020, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the consents were granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot.

The appellant raised concerns about the impact of tree removal on a shared woodlot and requested additional tree planting conditions.

The Hearing Office found that the proposed development was a permitted use, consistent with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Provincial Policy Statement, and that the existing conditions of approval adequately addressed tree removal impacts.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a two-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The appellant argued the permit should not be granted because an existing garage and fence encroached on an unopened municipal road allowance.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Hearing Officers granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged encroachment was a property boundary dispute outside the scope of the development permit and did not disclose a valid planning justification.

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a dental malpractice action seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and leave to conduct a focused continuation of the defendant’s examination for discovery after a specific dental instrument was produced for the first time during discovery.

The court considered the interaction between the 2010 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, including discovery plans under Rule 29.1 and proportionality in discovery under Rule 29.2, and the traditional jurisprudence governing undertakings and follow‑up discovery.

The court held that an examination for discovery is not complete until proper follow‑up questions arising from undertakings or newly produced evidence can be asked.

The defendant was granted leave to amend the defence, and the plaintiffs were permitted a limited further discovery focused on the instrument.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellants, a standardbred owner/trainer and an owner/trainer/driver, appealed Judges' Rulings suspending them for two years and imposing fines of $10,000 and $50,000 respectively for violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The violations involved a scheme of hidden ownership where racehorses were transferred to avoid the consequences of a suspension and child support enforcement proceedings.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the findings of liability, concluding the transfers were not bona fide and the appellants misled investigators.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the suspensions to three months and the fines to $3,000 each, considering the appellants' ability to pay and the statutory public interest.