Jameson William Clow

The appellant appealed the conditions of approval for a draft plan of condominium proposing 20 resort commercial units, specifically challenging the requirement for 20 weeks of mandatory rental availability.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce the mandatory rental period to 10 weeks, with two weeks required during the summer season.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised condition was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the condition accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Telephone Conference Call to address appeals by Langmaid's Island Corporation and Mitchell Fasken concerning the Township of Lake of Bays' Community Planning Permit By-law and a draft Plan of Subdivision.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the site-specific appeal from the general appeal.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List for a four-day Merit Hearing scheduled to commence on April 9, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to address appeals concerning a proposed 36-lot residential development on Langmaid's Island and a related Community Planning Permit By-law.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the applicant's site-specific appeal from a general appeal of the by-law.

The Tribunal also scheduled a four-day merit hearing to resolve the remaining site-specific issues, including the implementation of a prior Phase 1 decision and the placement of sleeping cabins.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal had previously approved the draft plan, but the appellant sought a redline revision.

The Tribunal directed a process whereby the proposed redline revision would be circulated by the approval authority.

If satisfied, the parties could request a revision to the Tribunal's order on consent; otherwise, a further Case Management Conference would be scheduled.

The applicants appealed the conditions of approval for two draft plans of subdivision in the Oak Bay Golf Marina Community.

The parties reached a settlement to extend the draft plan approval lapsing date, revise conditions related to a secondary access road, and update phasing and unit counts.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the revised conditions and draft plans were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approvals by the District of Muskoka.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day merit hearing, approved the draft Procedural Order, and directed the parties to refine the Issues List prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order for a Phase 2 hearing regarding a proposed plan of subdivision and related amendments for Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal removed certain issues that attempted to re-argue matters decided in Phase 1, as well as improperly formulated issues from a self-represented party.

The Phase 2 hearing was scheduled for seven days by video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of draft plan of subdivision approval conditions.

The Township of Georgian Bay and the District of Muskoka requested and were granted party status without opposition.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow time for settlement discussions and potential mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to set directions for the Phase 2 hearing regarding an appeal for a draft Plan of Subdivision on Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange an issues list and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

A self-represented litigant appealed eight decisions from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his actions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a vexatious litigant designation under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant's claims related to complaints about interactions with government agencies, law enforcement, and mental health and medical personnel spanning multiple years and incidents.

The Court of Appeal upheld all dismissals, finding the pleadings fell far short of procedural requirements, failed to advance any justiciable cause of action, and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious proceedings including rambling discourse, grandiose damage claims, and repetitious allegations across multiple proceedings.

The respondent was convicted of driving while holding a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, holding that the Crown must prove the cellphone was capable of receiving or transmitting.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the requirement for a device to be capable of receiving or transmitting applies only to prescribed devices, not to cellphones.

The applicant sought to prohibit the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) from conducting a hearing into whether the applicant should pay costs to the respondents following an unsuccessful appeal.

The applicant argued that the lack of a transcript and the OMB member's refusal to consider a lawyer's notes demonstrated bias and precluded a fair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that courts generally will not entertain piecemeal attacks on administrative proceedings before a final decision is made.

The appellant appealed from a judgment declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

He argued the application judge erred by denying his request for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the application judge's discretionary decision, noting the appellant's motivation for the adjournment was delay and he had outstanding costs awards against him.

The appellant appealed a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court directly to the Court of Appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion and quashed the appeal, holding that the proper route for such an appeal is to the full panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.