Jenna Khoury-Hanna

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to legalize the limited residential use (office, multi-purpose space, and sanitary facilities) of the second-storey loft of an existing detached garage on a waterfront property.

The municipality argued the use constituted a dwelling unit and would negatively impact the at-capacity Lake Trout Lake.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed use did not include bedrooms or kitchens, the existing septic system was adequate, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on their zoning by-law amendment application to permit the replacement and redevelopment of an existing waterfront dwelling and garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals to the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law.

One appellant withdrew, and another reached a partial settlement.

The Tribunal directed that the remaining appeals be heard separately and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for August 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law, which consolidates 14 existing by-laws.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, consolidated the Mariposa appeals, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference as well as merit hearings for specific appellants.

Procedural directions were issued for the submission of Draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

The appellant municipality was charged with contraventions under the Endangered Species Act for road maintenance activities that allegedly harmed an endangered butterfly species.

The municipality sought declaratory relief stating that its road maintenance obligations under the Municipal Act superseded the Endangered Species Act, exempting it from compliance.

The application judge dismissed the application as premature and not ripe for adjudication, noting the municipality had not attempted to obtain a permit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the issues were not justiciable and should be addressed either through the permit process or in the ongoing quasi-criminal prosecution.

The appellants brought a motion for costs against an added party, Mr. Earl, seeking $42,646.65 for costs incurred due to a motion to extend time for filing an expert witness statement and for hearing costs.

The appellants argued Mr. Earl's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous, citing his expert's failure to adhere to the procedural order and his raising of a stormwater management issue not shared by the approval authorities.

The Tribunal found that while the expert's unresponsiveness and failure to meet deadlines was problematic, it did not result in significant delay or prejudice.

The Tribunal concluded Mr. Earl's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award, and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Township and County to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a 16-lot residential development.

The appellants reached a settlement with the municipalities, resolving concerns about municipal water supply.

A neighbouring property owner maintained an objection regarding potential stormwater management impacts on his property.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion by the neighbour to extend the time for filing an expert witness statement due to non-compliance with the Procedural Order.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the appellants, the Tribunal found that the proposed stormwater management plan was appropriate and would likely improve existing conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan in principle, subject to finalization.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 20-lot residential subdivision due to the municipality's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner concerned with stormwater management and participant status to another individual.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an existing small-scale shed within the shoreline setback on their seasonal recreational property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment that defined the structure as a 'marine storage shed' and established specific regulations for its size and setbacks.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The defendants, a land surveying company and an employee, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' reference plan incorrectly depicted a property boundary, leading to loss of access to their mill.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act and constituted an abuse of process due to prior related litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claim was discovered within the two-year limitation period when the plaintiffs first learned the boundary might be wrong (August/September 2015), and that the action was not an abuse of process as it concerned distinct factual allegations from previous claims.

The applicant sought costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew his appeal of a zoning by-law amendment shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the costs request despite the withdrawal and granted the applicant party status for the motion.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the appellant's conduct in filing the appeal, inquiring about purchasing the property, and ultimately withdrawing the appeal in response to a communication from the applicant's counsel was reasonable and did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required for a costs award.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage operation as an on-farm diversified use.

In this case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbours and participant status to eleven individuals, finalized the issues list, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of a recreational dwelling on a vacant waterfront lot.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment that included a site-specific Shoreline Residential zone, a refined Environmental Constraint zone, and comprehensive environmental mitigation measures.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and environmental evidence, finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants filed a motion under s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act after the Township issued a notice of incomplete application for a zoning by-law amendment, requiring an Official Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Study, and servicing report.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order deeming the application complete without the requested studies, subject to the appellants providing confirmation from the Health Unit regarding a septic system permit.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a third dwelling unit on the subject property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence that the proposed amendment, subject to conditions including fire safety and parking requirements, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Peterborough and the Township of Selwyn to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant sought to recognize and permit the existing legal non-conforming use of a motor vehicle repair shop and to allow for a building addition.

The municipalities argued that land use compatibility concerns had not been adequately addressed and that mitigation measures should be resolved at the policy stage rather than the site plan stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies and that any impacts on neighbouring residences could be adequately mitigated through a robust site plan agreement.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing triplex.

The refusal was based on the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority's position that the property lacked safe access during a regulatory storm event, relying on 2014 draft flood plain mapping.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 flood lines had not been formally adopted into the City's Official Plan and were therefore not determinative.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's engineering evidence that ground-truthed the model using a 2004 storm event, demonstrating that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever a 0.8-hectare parcel for residential purposes.

The key issue was whether the proposed reduction in the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback from an adjacent livestock facility was appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the limited site-specific circumstances for reducing the MDS setback under Guideline 43.

The appeals were dismissed.