Jeffrey J. Hewitt

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

The applicants sought a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the 45th General Election for the electoral district of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, where the initial count showed a 77-vote margin.

The court granted the application based on credible affidavit evidence of counting errors, without requiring proof of materiality.

During the recount, the court ruled on numerous disputed ballots, strictly applying the mandatory requirement for a mark in the circle while objectively assessing whether extraneous marks could identify the elector.

The court also admitted special ballots bearing initials on the reverse, finding they were likely placed by election officers.

The recount concluded with the leading candidate's margin reduced to four votes, confirming the election result.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment, Sorge Enterprises Inc. brought a motion seeking to invalidate the County's Notice of Decision and to be added as an appellant despite filing its appeal out of time.

Sorge argued the Notice was deficient for failing to explicitly list registered owners as having appeal rights.

The Tribunal found the Notice of Decision met all prescribed regulatory requirements and was valid.

Consequently, Sorge's appeal was out of time, and the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period.

Sorge's request to be added as an appellant was denied, but it was granted non-appellant party status on consent.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to regularize an existing gazebo located near a municipal drain.

The core issue was a requested reduction of the minimum setback from the drain from 10.4 metres to 0 metres.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' expert engineering evidence, which confirmed the slope was stable and not prone to erosion, over the municipality's reliance on a 1988 drainage report.

Finding that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The court considered whether a strip of land (the "0020 property") between the applicant's two properties was a public highway that should vest in the Town of Essex under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicant argued the land was a roadway on a registered plan of subdivision and should be owned by the Town.

The court found that the land was never dedicated or accepted as a public highway, was not used by the public, and was instead used by the respondent golf course for irrigation.

The application was dismissed and ownership confirmed in the respondent.

The appellants appealed the municipality's denial of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding symbol from their property.

At a status hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were close to a settlement and requested additional time.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to finalize the settlement details.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the storage of fireworks on lands located in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that while public safety concerns were addressed by federal licensing, the application was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because the appellants failed to provide a rigorous assessment of need or a comprehensive evaluation of alternative locations.

Furthermore, the application did not conform to the Town Official Plan as the proposed use was not part of a municipal initiative and was not demonstrated to be inappropriate within a settlement area.

The appeals were denied and the application was refused.

The appellants appealed the municipality's denial of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding symbol from their property.

During a status update hearing, the Tribunal granted participant status to an adjacent property owner who raised concerns about a shared laneway.

The parties advised they were close to resolving the matter, and the Tribunal scheduled a further status update.

The appellants appealed the municipality's denial of a zoning by-law amendment application to remove a holding symbol from their property.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a status update hearing to allow the parties time to continue negotiations.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of their application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow for the storage of fireworks.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to 11 individuals without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 3-day merit hearing to commence on April 4, 2023, and directed the Town's counsel to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Oakdale Trails Inc. against the Town's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 8600.

The appellant argued that the by-law allowed for excessive building heights and density, and raised concerns about sanitary sewer capacity.

The Tribunal found that the appeal did not disclose any genuine, legitimate land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's evidence that the by-law conformed with the Official Plan and that servicing capacity was adequate.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the appeal could be allowed, as it only raised general concerns regarding design and compatibility without linking them to applicable policies.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Beachside Development Inc. sought costs against Manning Developments Inc. following the dismissal of Manning's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal found that Manning's appeal lacked any land use planning grounds and was filed to delay Beachside's development and advance Manning's own servicing dispute with the Municipality.

Concluding that Manning's conduct was patently unreasonable and vexatious, the Tribunal awarded costs to Beachside on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $12,500.

The appellant brought a motion for costs against the City of Windsor following a successful appeal of a minor variance decision.

The appellant argued that the City acted unreasonably and in bad faith by withdrawing from the hearing and refusing to consent to an order allowing the appeal, thereby forcing the appellant to incur unnecessary hearing costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City provided timely notice of its non-attendance and had no obligation to participate or consent, especially given the presence of participants whose inputs required consideration at a hearing.

The appellant sought costs against the Town of Kingsville, alleging the Town acted unreasonably and in bad faith by delaying a decision on a site plan despite staff support.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith.

The Tribunal noted that municipal councils have the discretion to not follow staff recommendations, and that costs are rarely awarded against a public authority.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacks jurisdiction to award costs for conduct occurring outside its proceedings.

Beachside Development Inc. brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Manning Developments Inc. regarding a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Municipality of Lakeshore.

Manning's appeal was based on the Municipality's differing treatment of servicing allocation between Beachside's lands and Manning's adjacent lands.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that municipal servicing allocation is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, meaning the appeal disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was brought for the purpose of delay.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted an increase in maximum building height from 12.0 m to 15.5 m for a four-storey apartment building.

The appellant argued the height increase was incompatible with the surrounding single-family dwellings and not respectful of the 'small town character' of Lucan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's planner, finding that the revised proposal, which included increased setbacks and buffering, appropriately mitigated potential impacts.

The Tribunal concluded the development was compatible with existing development, respectful of the small-town character, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part only to implement the revised by-law.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to the City of Windsor to permit a municipal building gallery and washroom facilities to extend above the crown of Riverside Drive.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development failed all four tests for a minor variance under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not minor, and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was denied.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest on a mortgage debt.

The parties had previously settled a construction lien dispute with a zero-interest mortgage due in 2008, which was paid off in installments as condominium units were sold, with the final balance paid after the plaintiff commenced this action in 2018.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest on amounts paid before the statement of claim was issued, but was entitled to prejudgment interest on the balance outstanding at the time the claim was issued, from the 2008 due date until payment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because his short and long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 under the collective agreement.

The application was filed approximately 10.5 months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for the conclusion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal held that waiting for another proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.