Jacob Damstra

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance and the refusal of a development permit to replace an existing deck with a larger, engineered deck located at a 0m setback within a dynamic beach hazard area on Lake Huron.

The appellants argued that existing timber cribs mitigated the dynamic beach processes, making the development safe.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, or local planning policies, which strictly prohibit new development in dynamic beach hazard areas regardless of existing shoreline protection.

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance by the Municipality of Lambton Shores and the refusal of a development permit by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority regarding the replacement of a deck on a shoreline property.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the two appeals be heard together and issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates and procedural requirements.

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

The plaintiff contractor sued for unpaid invoices relating to the construction of concrete grain silos.

The defendant grain company counterclaimed for damages, alleging construction deficiencies caused water infiltration and grain spoilage.

The court found that the contractor's defective workmanship caused water infiltration in two silos.

The court awarded the defendant damages for repair costs, increased labour, and future repairs, while dismissing claims for spoiled grain due to lack of documentary evidence.

The court also held that the defendant's counterclaim was not statute-barred because the limitation period did not commence while the contractor was actively attempting to repair the defects.

The plaintiff was awarded its unpaid invoices, but the individual defendant was found not personally liable.

The appellant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot area per unit required to convert an existing four-plex into an eight-plex.

The City did not contest the appeal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance application to convert a cottage property into a seasonal recreational camp.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to site plan control and other conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit a sign shop establishment.

A Case Management Conference was held to organize the hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing to proceed by video and directed the exchange of documents.

The appellant brought a motion to determine whether its proposed redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision is located within a 'Settlement Area' under the Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan.

The City argued that the lands were not delineated as a Settlement Area in its Official Plan and therefore did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'Settlement Area' should be read disjunctively, and that the subject property qualifies as a Rural Settlement because it is a built-up area where development is concentrated, has a mix of land uses, and is identified in the Official Plan.

The motion was granted, and the issue was removed from the Issues List.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve applications to permit a rural wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use.

At the first Case Management Conference, the County of Elgin was granted participant status.

The applicants brought a motion on consent to adjourn the matter sine die to allow the parties to engage in resolution discussions or seek Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.

The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.