James J. Feehely

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Township's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit an oversized accessory storage structure for a home industry.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a one-day hearing.

The Tribunal approved the parties' proposed schedule for exchanging witness statements and scheduled a one-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed the Town's enactment of a comprehensive zoning by-law.

At a case management conference, the parties advised that they were continuing settlement discussions and that a related appeal, which had been adjourned sine die, would impact the present matter.

The Tribunal found that further processing of the appeals was premature and ordered the parties to provide a status update within 90 days.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an oversized detached accessory structure in the front yard of a property located in the Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a 140 square metre accessory structure in the front yard with a minimum setback of 102 metres, subject to a site plan agreement to address ecological impacts on a significant woodland.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local official plans, and allowed the appeal in part to amend the zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot to create one new lot and construct a new dwelling.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence from both the appellant and the municipality supporting the applications.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the minor variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframe.

During the initial hearing dates, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, reached an Agreed Statement of Facts, and narrowed the issues.

The Tribunal directed the submission of a final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to facilitate the expansion of a metal fabrication facility.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted party status to the County of Simcoe on consent, and adjourned the Applicant's Motion to Dismiss to a later date due to health-related issues for one counsel.

Directions were also given for the preparation of a draft Procedural Order.

The Town of New Tecumseth brought a motion during a Case Management Conference to bring the unappealed portions of its Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2021-128 into force.

The appellants did not oppose the motion, subject to a minor clarification regarding a schedule.

The Tribunal granted the motion, deeming the unappealed portions of the by-law to have come into force on the date of passing.

The Tribunal also agreed to phase the hearings for the two appellants separately for efficiency.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an accessory building with an increased maximum area and a reduced setback from a watercourse on a rural residential lot.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence and a Natural Heritage Evaluation demonstrating no negative impacts on adjacent natural features, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

Appeals were brought against the Town of Innisfil's Official Plan regarding the designation of certain lands.

DLR appealed the Agricultural Area designation on its lands, seeking a Rural Area designation to permit development.

Nextnine appealed the Key Natural Heritage Features designation on its lands, seeking a Parks and Open Space designation to permit a golf course expansion.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the Town's designations were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, conformed to the Growth Plan 2020, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and the County of Simcoe Official Plan.

The respondents in an appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding subsequent actions the Township proposed to take to remedy inconsistencies in its zoning by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the potential remedial work by the Township would not assist in interpreting the by-law under review.

The court held that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for fresh evidence, as it was not necessary to deal fairly with the issues on appeal and declining to admit it would not lead to a substantial injustice.

The appellant landowner sued the Town of Newmarket for negligence after its tenant allowed third parties to deposit significantly more fill on the demised land than the appellant had authorized.

The source of some of the fill was a subdivision within the municipality.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the municipality owed no duty of care to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal agreed, distinguishing the case law relied upon by the appellant, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that an agreement between the parties was conditional on the respondents receiving funding from another project.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the release was not an acknowledgment of debt, but rather an agreement to pay a ceiling amount to limit liability if future funding was received.

The appeal was dismissed.