John David Goudy

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance and the refusal of a development permit to replace an existing deck with a larger, engineered deck located at a 0m setback within a dynamic beach hazard area on Lake Huron.

The appellants argued that existing timber cribs mitigated the dynamic beach processes, making the development safe.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, or local planning policies, which strictly prohibit new development in dynamic beach hazard areas regardless of existing shoreline protection.

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance by the Municipality of Lambton Shores and the refusal of a development permit by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority regarding the replacement of a deck on a shoreline property.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the two appeals be heard together and issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates and procedural requirements.

The applicants brought a motion for costs in the amount of $35,000 against the appellants following a merit hearing regarding a development permit application.

The applicants alleged the appellants' conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by religious discrimination.

The Tribunal found the motion completely lacking in substance and merit, noting no evidence of discrimination and that the appellants' case, though unsuccessful, was not unreasonable or devoid of merit.

The motion for costs was denied.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approving a development permit to recognize the existing use of a property as a retreat centre.

The appellants argued that the retreat use was not a permitted use and did not qualify as an 'existing use' under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Tribunal found that while the retreat use was not a listed permitted use, it qualified as an existing use because it was legally established prior to June 12, 1985, and had continued without interruption, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Commission's decision to issue the development permit.

The Municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a use is a legal non-conforming use under s. 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, seeking to strike evidence and adjourn the appeal pending a Superior Court declaration.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it has both the authority and duty to make such determinations as questions of fact.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's motion to consolidate the appeals regarding the zoning by-law amendment, site plan approval, and s. 45(2) application, finding consolidation would allow for a fair, just, and expeditious hearing.

The Tribunal held a status update teleconference regarding appeals related to a proposed biosolid storage facility.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate the proceedings, while the municipality indicated its intent to bring a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction over certain legal non-conforming use issues.

The Tribunal scheduled the motions to be heard at an upcoming Case Management Conference and adjourned the hearing on the merits to January 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Bartels Environmental Services Inc. against the Municipality of West Perth.

The appeals relate to a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility on the subject property.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to grant a development permit.

The parties were unable to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on October 21, 2024, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The applicant neighbour brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from the respondent's apple storage facility.

The respondent had rebuilt its facility and relocated its controlled atmosphere equipment, including condenser fans and a nitrogen generator, closer to the applicant's property.

The Board applied the common law nuisance test to determine if the applicant was directly affected by the disturbance.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property, noting the agricultural character of the neighbourhood and the respondent's efforts to buffer the noise.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal, acting as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office, held Case Management Conferences regarding appeals of a development permit granted by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The parties discussed narrowing issues and possible settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 17, 2024, to determine the pathway forward.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a development permit approval, the Hearing Office finalized the Issues List, finding that the Appellants' proposed issues regarding conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Niagara Escarpment Plan were relevant.

The Hearing Office declined to change the status of two Appellants who appeared via an agent, and declined to dismiss another Appellant's appeal for not calling witnesses.

Following the CMC, the Applicants indicated their intention to withdraw their development permit application, prompting the scheduling of a further CMC to determine the next steps.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the continued use of activities on the subject lands, including short-term accommodations and events.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, discussed the draft Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and set hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its January 12, 2024 decision regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment refusal and site plan approval failure for a biosolid storage facility.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the amendment corrected the first sentence of paragraph one to accurately reflect the nature of the appeals.

The applicant sought specific performance of three agreements of purchase and sale for land, conditional on consent severance approval.

The respondent purported to terminate the agreements, arguing the municipality would not consent to severance.

The court found that the respondent had a good faith duty to apply for consent severance, which it failed to do initially.

However, a "without prejudice" application was later made and rejected by the municipality.

The court held that the agreements explicitly required consent severance, not a plan of subdivision, and that Schedule A superseded Clause 15 regarding compliance with the Planning Act.

Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to compel the respondent to pursue a more expensive and time-consuming plan of subdivision.

The application for specific performance was dismissed, but the applicant was entitled to the return of their deposits with interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference to organize appeals by Bartels Environmental Services Inc. concerning the Municipality of West Perth's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a biosolid storage facility.

Settlement discussions between the parties were unsuccessful.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing to commence on November 25, 2024, and directed the parties to submit an updated procedural order.

This endorsement follows a case conference in a long-standing dispute concerning surface water drainage and contempt of court orders.

The plaintiff sought urgent directions regarding the defendant's refusal to allow proper access for mandated remedial work on his property.

Although the immediate access dispute was resolved prior to the conference, the court clarified that there is no ongoing formal proceeding (`lis pendens`) and that any future enforcement, such as further contempt findings, would require the plaintiff to initiate new formal motions.

The court reiterated the defendant's obligation to comply with previous orders and warned of potential escalated sanctions, including imprisonment, for continued non-compliance.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to the abutting property owners.

The parties requested and were granted a six-month adjournment to continue without-prejudice discussions, with a second Case Management Conference scheduled for January 2024.

The plaintiff was entirely successful in a bifurcated civil contempt proceeding against the defendant for failing to comply with a 2011 judgment regarding surface water drainage.

The plaintiff sought costs of $131,214.95 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant's conduct was reprehensible, obstinate, and uncooperative, justifying an elevated scale of costs.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 and awarded the plaintiff her full requested costs of $131,214.95.

This endorsement quantifies the initial amount the defendant must pay into court for remedial work on his property and determines the contempt fine.

The court found the defendant, Todd Joseph Sullivan, to be a "completely recalcitrant contemnor" for his ongoing refusal to accept and comply with previous court orders regarding drainage issues affecting the plaintiff's property.

The court ordered the defendant to pay $66,274.00 into court for the "Modified Option 1" remedial work, including supplemental components, and a $10,000.00 fine to the Provincial Treasurer for contempt.

The court emphasized the binding nature of its decisions and warned of potential imprisonment for future non-compliance.