Jennifer Alexis Gibb Savini

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the County of Brant's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming 18-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 25, 2023.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving two consent applications to create a new lot and transfer land between parcels.

At the hearing, it became apparent that the applicant was unprepared and that there was a fundamental factual question regarding whether the two originating parcels had already merged on title.

The Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference, directed the parties to determine the merger status, and set a deadline for the applicant to amend the applications if necessary.

A second Case Management Conference and a two-day hearing were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Belleville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a vending machine business as an accessory use on a residential property.

During the hearing, the applicant's own land use planning expert testified that the original application was flawed and did not conform with the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew the appeal, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard of the subject property.

The appellant argued that a Heritage Impact Assessment was required due to the adjacent heritage property and that the proposal would negatively impact views.

The Tribunal found that the variances for lot coverage and environmental setbacks were unnecessary as the proposal complied with the Zoning By-law.

Regarding the variance for the front yard location, the Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amended procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing regarding appeals by Cosmopolitan Homes under sections 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act.

The appeals relate to the municipality's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a proposed 163-unit residential development in Prince Edward County.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the finalized issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a two-and-a-half storey rear addition to an existing three-unit residential building.

The City argued the proposal was incompatible with the stable neighbourhood, provided inadequate parking, and constituted overdevelopment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the proposal was an appropriate form of minor intensification that conformed to the Official Plan's compatibility and built form policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment.

The municipality sought a permanent injunction to enforce its zoning by-law against industrial uses occurring within setback areas adjacent to residential zoning.

The respondent resisted the application by relying on legal non-conforming use protection under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act for storage trailer boxes and a driveway that pre-dated the relevant zoning amendments.

The court found the evidence established continuous prior lawful use of both the storage area and driveway, and further found that any increased use did not amount to a change in kind or create undue additional impacts.

The application for injunctive relief was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the municipality, which would permit a 337-unit model trailer park on a 38.6-hectare parcel of land.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that approximately 15 days were required for the hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing and directed the parties to finalize and submit the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List for final approval.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Friends of South Shore against Prince Edward County's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments would permit a 337-unit model trailer park.

The Tribunal addressed requests for status, granting participant status to several individuals and an unincorporated residents' group.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the draft procedural order.

The applicant sought minor variances for height and setback relief to expand an existing three-storey designated heritage commercial building in the Municipality of Port Hope.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the application, and the owner of an abutting property appealed, primarily raising concerns about the loss of an existing exit over the subject property.

The Tribunal found that matters relating to easements and rights of ingress/egress were outside its jurisdiction.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to a site plan agreement.

The applicant Medical Officer of Health sought an ex parte injunction under section 102 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act to restrain the respondent restaurant owner from contravening a section 22 order.

The respondent had repeatedly refused to comply with COVID-19 regulations regarding masking, contact tracing, and proof of vaccination for indoor dining.

The court found a clear breach of the enactment and granted an interim interlocutory injunction for 10 days, scheduling a return hearing to allow the respondent an opportunity to participate.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a consent application to sever a property to create a new residential lot.

The subject property contained a dwelling designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Based on uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan as appropriate infill development that would not negatively impact heritage attributes.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a 163-unit residential development.

The parties requested deadlines to either finalize a settlement or submit a draft Procedural Order for a merits hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update by January 14, 2022, with either a settlement agreement or a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permits a dwelling in the hamlet of Lonsdale.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicants and the appellant's spouse.

The Tribunal reviewed and amended the draft Issues List to ensure it focused on substantive planning matters within its jurisdiction, excluding procedural issues.

A Procedural Order was approved, and a two-day video hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the decisions of the County to grant provisional consent and approve a zoning by-law amendment to create two new rural residential lots from an existing parcel.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the development represented a modest form of intensification that would contribute to the housing supply without adversely impacting surrounding agricultural uses.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a parking lot and storage compound for boats and recreational vehicles on an abutting property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding stormwater management, visual impacts, traffic, and environmental protection.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert evidence that the proposed use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and that specific concerns regarding buffering and drainage can be appropriately addressed at the site plan control stage.

The defendants, the City of Belleville and a by-law officer, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's 235-page statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff's claim was based on a mistaken belief that private property is immune from municipal by-laws, and included various ill-defined allegations such as trespass, breach of agreement, double jeopardy, limitations, legal non-conforming status, Charter violations, Criminal Code violations, harassment, and slander.

The court found the statement of claim hopelessly flawed and struck it in its entirety, concluding that none of the alleged claims had merit and could not be salvaged by amendment.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicants, who lease advertising signs, challenged a municipal by-law amendment that eliminated off-premise portable signs.

They argued the amendment infringed their freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, was ultra vires, and was tainted by bias.

The court found that while the by-law infringed s. 2(b), it was a reasonable limit saved by s. 1, as it addressed pressing aesthetic and traffic safety concerns.

The court also dismissed the ultra vires and bias claims, finding the municipality acted in good faith and within its statutory authority.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a fee levied against him by the municipality for fire department services.

The municipality had invoiced the appellant's home insurer through a third-party billing agent, and when the insurer declined to pay, added the fee to the appellant's tax bill.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the municipal bylaw, properly interpreted, did not authorize charging the fee to the homeowner personally when the insurer declined to pay.

The municipality was ordered to reimburse the fee and penalties.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 65 Ward Street in Port Hope.

The Board issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates for February 2019, establishing deadlines for the exchange of witness lists and documents, and outlining the issues to be addressed at the hearing.